The Sanctity of Marriage: A Response to the ELCA Convention

[RCSVirginia]

As hieronomy has recommended one good video on family values, I shall recommend another one. To fully understand what a biblical marriage is that fundamentalists should be fighting for, take a look at "Mrs. Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage To Everyone Else" by Mrs. Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian. It's far more enjoyable to watch than this video.

[RCSVirginia]

The Concordia Theological Seminary is a seminary of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod. It has neither jurisdiction nor authority over the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Neither does this man. He should keep his bigoted nose out of the business of a more enlightened and truly Christian church.

[11webekl]

@RCSVirginia There is no reason at all why the LCMS can't respond to a decision in another church body.

[hieronomy]

I strongly suggest that you contract with Sen Vitter of LA as your poster guy . He already has a video on YouTube , really !

[RCSVirginia]

@hieronomy

I took your advice and looked up Senator Vitter of Lousiana. You are so right. He should be the poster guy for this presenter and all who think like him. Perhaps the best YouTube video I found on Senator Vitter was "Forgotten Crimes: Lawmaker, Lawbreaker" by DoingaVitter. It does show the true family values that Senator Vitter represents and why it is so important to fight for abstinence for teenagers and against any civil rights for gays.

[PhantomF9]

If a man loves a man, as friends/brothers, it's okay. BUT if two human beings love each other on deeper level, and happen to be of the same sex, suddenlly they are excluded from God's infinite love. Where is the logic in that?

You have no real argument as to why homosexuality is sinful except that someone told u it was, and the few sparse, mistranslated + misintrepeted scriptures of The Bible, which is apparentlly "The Word of God."

[struveinsky]

Actually, for a spokesman for a theological seminary, he is not very accurate. Jesus never made any mention of homosexuality in any of his teachings. He just inserted that of his own fruition. It saddens me that people preach hate in the guise of love and logic and they don't even do so with an accurate representation of Jesus' teachings and the scriptures. How smug and hateful of him.

[CoryTheRaven]

Regardless of the fact that marriage is not a sacrament and that procreation is a gift and a calling but not an imperative, I'm all for the gift of marriage... which is why I'm happy to see it extended to homosexuals. Here we have homosexuals fighting to GET married while more and more straight people are fighting to GET OUT of marriage.

[seethelightofgod]

very good video

[hillerm]

NEWS FLASH: Marriage is not a solely Christian institution. From a legal perspective, its not even a religious institution at all, but rather a civil one. Therefore, Bible verses simply aren't a legitimate excuse for banning gay marriage.

Anyway, why do you people hate freedom? Gay marriage doesn't hurt you, so why not let people do what they want?

This is tyranny of the majority in its purest form.

[jackooboy1]

Did you really just frame this argument? 

[MackLeeGreen]

@hillerm

That's an irrelevant argument. He is not making a civil argument. His criticism is not of a civil institution, it is of another Lutheran church body, thus scriptural references are more relevant than anything else. Why do you hate freedom? A church's choice to adhere to what the Bible says does not hurt you. Any attempt to block religious freedom is tyranny.

[hillerm]

@MackLeeGreen

"Why do you hate freedom? A church's choice to adhere to what the Bible says does not hurt you. Any attempt to block religious freedom is tyranny."

You have weird backwards logic. You're basically saying that I am trying to take away the freedom of one group to take away the freedom of another group, and that's somehow wrong. Why don't you just leave homosexuals alone?

Adhering to personal religious beliefs is fine, but forcing it upon others is not fine or just.

[whamfan87]

The sanctity of Britney Spears's 24 hour marriage is going to be meaningless if "those gays" are allowed to marry. Whats next? Womens right to vote? African American voting?

[aneub100]

Alright, I understand your point. Now you must know that there are a lot of weird things in the Bible and a lot of people don't believe in everything the Bible says but still consider themselves Christians. Since homosexuality is completely normal in any society I am wondering why many Christians continue to condemn it. I know that you think it is a sin but what exactly is it harming? My concern is that a gay child will grow up being told by the church that what they are feeling is evil.

[aneub100]

I'm not sure why you have to be rude, I thought christians were supposed to love thy neighbor as thyself. Anyways, I'm wondering how it is that the church endorsed homosexuality. It was my understanding that this was about allowing gays to be in the clergy. The point I was trying to make is that you and others seem to be very upset about this particular "sin." If you are against ANY SIN and you don't want gays to be in the clergy then it should follow that you also don't want liars in the clergy

[pilot4321]

Let me ask you this, would you be ok with your pastor being an adulator? How about an extorter? Child molester? Alcoholic? We all have sins and are all sinners. Pastors carry out the public worship of a congregation. Scriptures require a pastor "to be above reproach." Not openly sinning against God. Any public impenitent, immoral sin should bar someone from being a pastor.  I don't care how long the list. The list of questions above is only the beginning of that list.

[aneub100]

pilot: find me one person on Earth who above reproach. If you include liar on the list, I doubt you would find anybody. It's also ironic that you put extorter on the list.

[pilot4321]

Jesus! What does above reproach mean in the context of 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1? Are we talking about public sins or private sins? The office of the overseer is a public office thus we must be talking about public sins. And yes, weve all broken Gods commandments, every single one of us, except for Jesus Christ. So youre saying because we all sin we should have a sin fest? Paul answered that question when he says By no means to the question Should we continue to sin so grace may increase.

[aneub100]

Do liars not sin in public? When exactly did I say we should have a sin fest? I don't think that doing bad things is good. But I don't think being an active homosexual is a bad thing. It's funny how christians always seem to be the quickest to judge without having sufficient information.

[pilot4321]

How many references are in the Bible about homosexuality? And of those how many in the NT? Answer those questions before you place your own judgment over God's. That is if you are serious about the Word of God and the truth God proclaims from it.

[aneub100]

The Bible contains 6 admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision. ~Lynn Lavner

If you are serious about the word of God I hope you will take Lev.15:19-21 seriously when it tells us not to touch menstruating women or the furniture that they touch. I am not putting my "judgment" over the word of God, I am putting common sense over a book written in the bronze age.

[pilot4321]

I know where youre going with Leviticus and you're getting your laws all mixed up, but hey when you've got a liberal, revisionist theology to push, why not. To me, 6 times seems like God is making a point. No different than other sins such as adultery or pride, or fill in the blank. If you chose to not hold a fellow Christian to account for Gods law, go for it! ITS A SIN in God's eyes. If it weren't than God would be a liar.

[aneub100]

How exactly are my laws mixed up? We are talking about the laws of God, yes? God did not write the Bible, people did. When we can see through science and common sense that homosexuality is not wrong, it is time to realize that. If God exists, he created people, including gays, so I believe that He has no problem with homosexuality and if He does He is a moron and does not deserve to be worshiped.

[pilot4321]

Wow, your true feelings were expressed there! The "scandal of particularity" might come into play. If God said it, it doesn't matter what I THINK OF IT! You seem to believe the Bible is just a human experience. That places us at odds. I believe the Bible is the very Word of God which was given to the writers of the Bible. This of course was not a problem until the enlighten period where pin heads like you thought they knew more than God. There are different types of law for different purposes!

[pilot4321]

And since science now says alcoholism can be inherited, we should not try to help those who have this addiction? I dont care what science says, any sin that is instructed as such in the Bible is offensive to God. Go ahead and love people straight to hell, but out of love, I will help them see the error in their ways as fellow Christians show me the error in my own ways. The reason there are sins in the first place is the original sin of Adam and Eve. God didn't create us to sin!

[aneub100]

How exactly am I a pinhead? I thought Christians weren't supposed to be judgmental. Where is the love you are supposed to have? Where do you get the idea that the Bible is the word of God? You get it from the Bible right? Well, that is circular reasoning and that doesn't fly in the real world. Also, we help people with alcohol addictions because we know through observable evidence that alcoholism is bad for a person. There is nothing out there showing that being an unrepentant gay will harm you.

[MackLeeGreen]

@aneub100

Really no evidence that being an unrepentant gay man can harm you?? How about the fact that gay men are 44 more times likely to contract aids than straight men??

[lykan21]

@pilot4321 ever wore to different types of fabric at the same time? ever ate seafoods? Because that would be an error of your ways according to your beloved bible!

[pilot4321]

@lykan21 Nice try, but wrong! Before you argue from an OT Law perspective, which is a difficult subject, let's look at creation. God created them male and female so that the two shall become one flesh (Matthew 19:3-5). Homosexuality goes against God's created order. You don't even need a Bible (special revelation), but only natural revelation to figure it out. That is why Paul uses homosexuality as his poster child for one following their own lustful desires, being their own God over God's will.

[lykan21]

@pilot4321 Whatever your magic book says i guess! Its not like i care about it or give it any sense of moral superiority. Plus keep picking and choosing out of it like you are doing right now, that gives you and your bible a look of credibility! LOL

[pilot4321]

@lykan21 First off, its not picking and choosing as Jesus was the goal of the law, He took the demands of the law on Himself. So do ceremonial or dietary laws matter anymore? No, do moral laws, yes. You don't need to be a rocket scientist or Christian to see that homosexuals cannot carry on society naturally. If everyone was truly homosexual, no new babies would come. BTW, what authority gives you the power to reject the Scriptures other than your personal rejection?

[lykan21]

@pilot4321 the very same authority that gives your scriptures its power: None!

Quick question: how do you scared a child with thoughts of the bogeyman if the child has stopped believing in any sort metaphysical non-sense a long time ago?!

In my mind your imaginary friend has just as much power as Santa!

**(funny how i dont spell god with a capital letter but i do it for Santa!)

[pilot4321]

@lykan21 Well, I'm truly disheartened by your stance. I pray that one day, God (with the capital G) would bring you to understand His (with a capital H) grace and mercy through Christ (with a capital C).

In the end I cannot prove God exists anymore than you can prove He doesn't. But science is not my god, so I don't much care. In the end faith is trust, and if you want to place your trust in the things of this world, go ahead!

[lykan21]

@pilot4321 lol you cannot disproves the flying spaghetti monster either, does that make him true too in your eyes?

[pilot4321]

@lykan21 Well, if you think the flying spaghetti monster will save you, well go for it! So, I think you just want to do what you want to do, no surprise, you're on this post trying to tear it down. So do it, and the consequences, whatever they are yours! Have a good life. . .

[PhantomF9]

Ok so, lifestyle choices like ceremonial or dietary laws don't matter anymore, but the scriptures against gay sex do. Hmm, ok so last i checked most Christians argue that homosexuality is a LIFETSYLE CHOICE. Again, good example of picking and choosing the parts of the bible you like.

[pilot4321]

@PhantomF9 So misguided! It's all about natural law now. Sex is only acceptable to God in marriage and marriage is between a man and a woman, in fact the Scriptures speak against homosexuality throughout. Can a homosexual couple conceive and bear children? Of course not! I don't care whether one is born in fallen flesh as homosexual or chooses it, it is not natural. Romans 1 might help you out with that, so the bottom line is the NT affirms to Christians what the OT testifies to.

[PhantomF9]

@pilot4321 First of all, the definition of marriage has changed countless times. If homosexuality was such an important issue you would think Jesus might, you know, have mentioned it?? There is on the other hand, a specific condemnation of divorce in the Gospels, spoken by Jesus, and yet I don't hear Focus on the Family saying anything about divorce.

I'm so misguided?? The fact that people, like yourself, don't even recognize their own xenophobia, is baffling.

[pilot4321]

@PhantomF9 Are you stating fact or opinion? The definition of marriage hasn't changed, ever! Genesis 2:24, affirmed by Paul in Ephesians 5. Jesus didn't take up the issue because was homosexuality allowable under the Law? No, it was punishable by death! Jesus was preaching to a Jewish audience, not Gentiles. Divorce is a huge problem in every church. It is serious because an unrepentant divorced person is just as accountable as an unrepentant homosexual as this is outside the boundaries.

[hieronomy]

@pilot4321

You need to explore the psycho-pathology of your unhealthy curiosity with what others do , consensually in private.Consider the unseemliness of such a morbid preoccupation and also consider that however emotionally

charged and passionate you may be about your beliefs ....they might be wrong in a way that you've not yet thought of for only god has the quality of omniscience .

[petrakid]

@aneub100 When did our thinking and our feelings on the matter supersede God's Word? Have you looked at the scripture for your views or come up with your own? What does scripture say? In other words, what does God say about homosexuality? Are you going to tell God "I don't agree with you, and you're wrong"? Think about it...

[aneub100]

Are saying that your pastor has never sinned? That would mean the Bible lies when it says we are all sinners. If you will admit that your pastor is a sinner then why does it matter which sins he commits? Why do you have to be so harsh about homosexuality? I can guarantee that your pastor has lied and will continue to lie throughout his or her life so why aren't you complaining about that? Also, it is a choice if you want to cheat on you spouse, but you do not choose who you are attracted to.

[pilot4321]

The difference is repentant sinners, those who call their sin a sin and confess it to God versus an impenitent sinner who thinks what they are doing is OK. God is the only source of righteousness. In fact our righteousness comes from God in Jesus Christ; you know the whole Cross thing. Pastors are sinners just as everyone else. Any single impenitent sin can lead to hell, not just homosexuality, but addictions, pride, and strife. We are called to confess our sins and put our trust in Christ alone

[aneub100]

It is still a sin in your eyes and in the eyes of many christians. Fortunately, there are also many christians that disagree with you. There are also many young men and women that are gay and are raised in christian families that have to grow up being told that they are an abomination. The ELCA has taken a step in the right direction.

[pilot4321]

No, you seem to get confused with the sin versus the sinner. We are all sinners and in a Christian community, we are called to hold accountable each other through the Law given by God. We will not hold it perfectly, but we are called to believe, repent and as Jesus said, "Sin no more." Sin is dangerous, it separates us from God. All the ELCA is doing is ignoring sins that God himself will not forgive. You can love someone straight to hell! It all comes down to repentance!

[janjello]

The Missouri Synod is rubbing its hands togather in glee hoping for all the new members! Remember this church believed in a flat earth until the 1900's. I know, I was one of them. You cannot apply Bible passsages without a context set within bio--ethical standards. Otherwise epileptic people you are demon possessed, not matter what you neurolost says. (Oh, I am one of those too. Throw away the dilantin, the Bible has spoken.)

[aneub100]

Homosexuality is not a mental problem, homophobia IS a mental problem.

[bunnycatch3r]

Scripture is an inconsistent guide for discussing matters of marriage unless you are a proponent of incestuous marriage -(Caine and his descendents) or polygamy (Abraham, David, Solomon etc). Sorry Dr. Wenthe but your response is neither clear nor charitable.

[petrakid]

What? ... What??? Can you back that statement up?

[bunnycatch3r]

Abraham married a half sister, Caine couldn't have possibly married anyone other than a daughter he got with his mother Eve. David and Solomon practiced polygamy? Ok, how exactly is scripture being "consistent" here in regards to marriage?

[petrakid]

the only trouble with this particular approach to interpreting scripture is this: The Law (as given in Exodus and more specifically in Deuteronomy) did not exist during the time of Abraham. Abraham was alive hundreds of years BEFORE Moses and the Law! As Romans says "sin is not taken into account where there is no law". There was no law regarding marriage practices, thus even though we think what he did was sin, what law did he have to teach him this?

[petrakid]

but there IS a law from Moses which is "still on the books" which teaches us that God despises homosexual practices. NOT that he despises homosexuals, but he despises the practice. The trouble with the ELCA is that the consciences they are bound to are NOT the teachings of God but of man, and NO GOOD can come from it! Nothing good at all will come from this, because God's word has already spoken. Deny God's Word, and you deny Christ...how does that help the homosexuals?

[bunnycatch3r]

"sin is not taken into account where there is no law" -it is obvious Paul was not aware of the flood. The entire planet was condemned for breaking laws that did not exist at the time.

[petrakid]

Well, then either Paul was a fool, or you are missing something. Now if you think Paul was a fool, then you don't see Scripture as THE WORD of God, and you are not a confessional Lutheran. But if you would put your opinions aside for a moment and seek truth, you would see that no where in the account of Noah did God say "they have broken my commandments" or "laws". What it does say is that the world was corrupt in God's eyes and violent. Paul says "no one is righteous, not even one"...

[bunnycatch3r]

Well, I am indeed a confessional Lutheran ™ but if as Paul says "sin is not taken into account where there is no law" by what standard was the world corrupt or violent?

[petrakid]

...so how can anyone say that Paul was wrong OR that the Bible is inconsistent? Paul IS true to Scripture (because he wrote it, moved by the Holy Ghost) and because marriage and relationships are God's specialty, I really don't think it wise that you call his Word is an inconsistent guide. As John writes, do not add or take away from what is written, lest a similar action be done to your own account. Trust the Word, not your own thoughts and opinions!

[bunnycatch3r]

My only point is that scripture is an excellent source for salvation. It's a terrible science book, guide to marriage, phone book, etc. However, I will take your advice. My opinions are not important. Blessings petrakid.

[petrakid]

Marriage and a phone book are...well they are not the same thing. Now if marriage is as scripture tells us - a divine institution, a symbol of Christ and the church, the proper means of procreation, then I think scripture IS a good marriage guide! The only way the statements about marriage could be wrong is if Scripture were not God's Word, or if God were a liar. What do you believe? Is Scripture fallible or is God screwing with our heads??

[bunnycatch3r]

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 gives some interesting advice on marriage. However, I can't recall ever hearing of anyone getting married in this way. Can you?

Would you council marriage in a situation like this -(assuming the guilty party has enough silver)?

To answer your question -Of course Scripture is God's Word!

But it's just that I find too many immoral passages like this that you choose to ignore and I choose to defy.

[ngdcam]

Yes, Abraham married his 1/2-sister. Cain actually likely married his full sister. And I can't yet figure out the whole polygamy thing (but where did it get Solomon? - a split kingdom). However, marrying close relatives is not forbidden until the time of Moses. God created Adam and Eve's genes perfect. After the Fall, imperfections gradually came into the gene pool until we get the current problems involved with inbreeding. That's why God gave the Israelites that law.

[bunnycatch3r]

Polygamy is an acceptable model - the kings of Israel practiced it and there is no law forbidding it. My point is that scripture may be a excellent source for salvation but an inconsistent one in regards to marriage.

[petrakid]

I don't understand why people are criticizing this statement, especially folks who do not believe that the Bible IS the Word of God (not just contains). I mean, if you don't like the LCMS' position on homosexuality, or on abortion, or on woman's ordination, then criticize the fact that we DO believe in Scripture Alone. Then we can talk. But if it's just going to be your ego's and your 'personal opinions' attacking, then you just need to go someplace else.

[Ph33rsPhun]

Thank you Dr. Wenthe for sharing your analyses and prayers. As someone who might very soon be looking for a new church home, I appreciate the effort on your part.

[klokker0007]

This guy who claims to have the "clear word of Scripture" doesn't seem to even know what it says. A mumble jumble of innuendo that doesn't even begin to address the issue. No one on the other side of the issue is arguing against the sancity of marriage. What a straw man he puts forward.

I love the smugness of the most self-righteous bunch of gatekeepers in the history of Christendom. Take the log out of your own eye first, bud.

[scl1122]

He is replying to the official change in ELCA policy as the president of the LCMS seminary in Ft. Wayne, IN.

He is not making a blank reply to homosexuality. It is a diplomatic response for those who know our position and the position now held officially by the ELCA. There is no innuendo and it is not his intent to "address the issue."

This is not an attempt at debate, but a last word at the moment for those who have already made up their mind.

[petrakid]

So then, klookker0007, what DOES scripture say? If you know, then tell us.

[BedfordForrest9561]

I hate what the ELCA has done, but the LCMS/ Concordia folks are not lily pure either. If they stop beating up on the lutheran women who have done great ministry over the last several decades as ORDAINED MINISTERS, and if they stop denying God's Communion to people they don't know, then MAYBE the LCMS has the right to talk on this. Nice try, Concordia. BTW, how's the reconciliation going with that fight you all had in the LCMS with your own people in the 1970's??? Hehheh. Nice try. :p

[scl1122]

First of all with respect to ordaining women, the LCMS takes seriously the words of Paul when he says that no woman should have authority over men and the order of creation. Women have a place in creation, they have a important role in society, marriage and the church. God gave them this place and it is an honor to fill it, even as a servant, and not tell God that you are "too good" to do as he asks you.

[scl1122]

As far as what happened in the 70's. The president of the seminary in St. Lewis denied the inerrant nature of scripture and was let go. The professors who refused to teach classes following the event were let go. The students left being ill informed and misguided amidst a slew of self appropriated news coverage. They performed a melodramatic spectacle of SELF-exile, but went back to the cafeteria for lunch before leaving campus.

[scl1122]

The LCMS has issues like all Christians do, but refusing to give in to the feminist movement, or demanding that professors do what they are paid to do are not the issue.

[pilot4321]

Amen!

[bigtmets]

did anybody hear about the church across the street how at exactly 2 a clock after the vote was over a tornado knock the cross off of the church and there had not been a tornado in the area in over 90 years

oh and by the way the forcast said it would be clear all day

[windham666]

the real problem is the tyranny of religion. you folks want to turn this country into a church state. in my view, you are no better than the taliban. maybe we could get along if folks like you minded your own business. if someone from another religion wanted to restrict marriage to their own view - say the muslim view - i doubt you would approve.

[crimthann86]

that's it.. these two groups call themselves Lutheran but they really are two different religions, so I don't get why this one feels the need to make an official statement.. kinda sound like a bunch of old men casting judgement without taking a good hard look in the mirror themselves..

[cosmithb]

The problem is that, people have a tendency of confusing the two. The Seminary needs to make it clear that it believes what the Bible teaches.

[crimthann86]

"The Seminary needs to make it clear that it believes what the Bible teaches."

Well that would be a start..

[crimthann86]

does what some other person do in their sanctity of marriage have anything to do with your marriage (assuming your married)? no.. your marriage is between you and your partner and not up to other men to have opinions about.. if they worried about their own relationships the world might be a better place..

[charlie02066]

You've indulged in a non-sequitor.

The discussion is *not* about whether a homosexual marriage has a direct impact on mine. Is *is* about the ELCA - a Christian body failing to be faithful to the Word of God by normalizing what is clearly sinful behavior - and leading their flock astray in the process.

Clearly you think that people should be allowed to marry whomever - and perhaps WHATEVER they desire. But God's word is clear. And that's the "opinion" that matters.

[crimthann86]

it is not a non-sequitur Charlie.. the title of this vid is the sanctity of marriage and I say my marriage is between me, my wife, and God.. Not something for man to pass judgement on - that's their point, not mine.. I am just saying they are wrong. WHATEVER they desire is a non-sequitur and insulting and childish.. It is not clear as you say, it's only clear when you turn the scripture into an idol, and neglect the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness.

[petrakid]

judgment is not "you're doing something wrong". that's not judgment. A judgment is the step after that - the one that says "you're going to hell". I mean, the moment we fail as parents is the moment we don't tell our kids "don't steal", because we think we're judging them. If any christian says "homosexuals are going to hell", they would be judging. But saying that homosexuality is wrong ISNT judging. Its stating a point of fact. But sin, in general is wrong, so whats the difference??

[crimthann86]

i understand the first use of the law is to turn a man back to grace.. however i see this as a legalistic issue and science tells us that these people are not attracted to the opposite sex..not choice.. more and more supportive evidence is telling us this daily.. and we are free from the law of moses.. and sin is whats obvious now.. murder, envy, graft, jealousy, and everything that harms relationships and society.. Moses is dead. Dig Dr. Luther up, I want to talk to him about this.

[crimthann86]

The laity is uneducated.. our inner city churches need help to serve their community.. and all people need a home.. Ein Feste Burg.. and be fully accepted in the Christian life.. Grace trumps.. Grace alone.. Believe it and its real.. Go on with your homophobia or talk to me like a Lutheran... Love, Crimthann

[petrakid]

so if you want to talk to Luther on this, go to the Book of Concord. What does it say? It says that it matters not what man says, but what Scripture says. So what does Scripture say? You tell me what it says (not what you think it says or want it to say) and then we can have a conversation Luther-style. But if you are just presenting your 'personal opinions' on the subject, then you are not speaking Lutheran, and you are not speaking Christian, you're speaking the very mantras of Satan

[petrakid]

so again, we should be open to allowing a rapist to keep on raping, because as you say "Grace trumps"? Come on...THATS NOT GRACE! That's foolishness and it's a blasphemy of Christ's death and resurrection. He told the prostitute "neither do I condemn you, now go and sin no more." we should do like wise. It has nothing to do with homophobia. It has to do with truth - with love. What sort of love says "its ok to keep on sinning, because I love you"?

[crimthann86]

" It says that it matters not what man says, but what Scripture says"

yea it pretty much says that in ACTS too..

scripture says - grace alone

scripture says - faith alone

sola scriptura means that we're not going to add things to the faith that aren't in the bible.. i.e. indulgences.. purgatory, Aristotle.. it does mean that the laws of Moses are for the unrighteous not for those in Christ Jesus.. maybe you should read it from a Lutheran point of view, it might surprise you..

[crimthann86]

also I have the book of Concord.. tonight I am going to do what few Lutherans ever do and read through it.. I will start by looking up sex in the index..

[petrakid]

You won't find a whole lot. But it is a good start. Seriously I encourage you in this. Because if what we're saying as the LCMS is true to Scripture, would you not be happier knowing the truth, even if it means having to look at all your presuppositions and re-evaluate a bit? Just FYI: I AM a seminary student. I have been a student of Christ for MANY years, and i DO come from a very liberal family. I don't make the statements I make lightly. I have shed many tears over the years as God

[petrakid]

has shaped and molded my worldview to conform to him. I have many more years of tears to shed. I didn't always believe homosexuality was wrong, and I once believed like my family - that we all have our individual rights even above and beyond what God says....I learned the hard way that I don't have the right to be disobedient.

[crimthann86]

if you want to pick at me, go to my channel.. I am serious.. this channel has tolerated me long enough..

thanks for the grace lcms to blather on and on.. I would have cut you off after 5 or 6 comments.. :-) maybe.

[crimthann86]

Dude.. err Ma'am.. I can't quite sex you.. :-) but if your an lcms seminarian I am guessing Dude - anyway Dude.. I joke but I have read through the book of Concord.. and my favorite book is Loci Communes by Phillip Melanchthon and Mighty Fortress might be my favorite tune.. I take none of this lightly.. I am not a seminary student but I am confirmed and that's enough to make me a Lutheran. I have no more pre-sups than you; I am sure. Life has destroyed more of my false gods than I can count.

[petrakid]

So then God's order in creation no longer matters? We're free, right? We can kill! We can cheat on our husbands! We can rob! That's what Luther would say, right? If you do not believe that homosexuality does not harm, then you are not listening to the truth. Say that the few speculative scientists who believe that homosexuality is biological are right, so what? Sin does not just affect our minds - it also affects our bodies and our genes. It even makes us think that sin is not sin.

[crimthann86]

1st - God's order of creation is not that important to my Lutheran theology.. twasn't that important to Luther....

2nd.. I can view sin by what it does to relationships and can understand the law to speak to me to let me know right from wrong.. and from what i see, homosexuals can do just fine in their relationships.. and the sin that destroys their relationship is the same as yours.

I see you this kind of legalism the same that plagued the ancient church in Acts..

cont..

[crimthann86]

cont.. we're not talking about murder, cheating, robbing are we.. ? Non-Sequitur.. We all know what sin is.. When Paul makes his list where is he leading it.. 'and you do this too'.. the spirit of the sex stuff is to have self control.. be married.. I don't live back then.. It wasn't written for me.. and I can not biblically hang a burden on people that I myself will not be burdened with.. and I am not gay. I am married and in love with a woman and that grace everybody should have.

[crimthann86]

and in the end we ain't gonna agree.. and that's fine.. I'm also a libertarian so live and let live.. you tend to your religion and I will tend to mine.. The ELCA was apostate from this kind of legalism for a long time now anyway.. I think it stems from a Lutheran view of the cross - the lcms seminary ain't gonna agree.. I just wanted to poke them a little and they let me.. that says something I guess.. fundamentalist have every right to be fundies.. just keep it out of my schools and courts.

[petrakid]

interestingly enough, those who don't believe want to turn this country into an anti-church state. The US government already had a state religion - Atheism. Attacking anyone who does not believe in no God, and in the violent way many Atheists do - well that is a heck of a lot more like the taliban, if you ask me.

Also, the world is not full of differing views where everyone just agrees to disagree. Sorry, it just don't work that way. There is truth that exists above all views.

[crimthann86]

"The US government already had a state religion - Atheism."

I haven't seen any atheist violence for quite sometime.. personally.. and none in this country that I can think off.. on the other hand I have seen some violence done in the name of religion.. so are the atheists better behaved..? no wonder they keep telling me I am stupid for being a Christian.. Why is it that some of their books are catching up to Joel Olsteen? Makes you wonder what we're showing to an unbelieving world.

[petrakid]

We're showing the unbelieving world that we're stupid. I don't mind you disagreeing with me, but I ask again, did Christ condone the actions of the prostitute when he said "your sins are forgiven"? What else does Christ say regarding the Law? "I have not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill the Law. I tell you the truth, not one iota, not a dot, will pass away from the Law until heaven and earth pass away." Now if you think that grace means that we can break the law and that's just...

[petrakid]

fine, then you are throwing out a whole lot of Paul, not to mention Christ himself. How can we be 'salt and light' if we let the whims and feelings of this world, which is passing away, dictate to us what Scripture does and does not say? When Christ died on the cross, did he justify sin, or did he justify sinners? There is a huge HUGE difference! No one here is saying that homosexuals are any worse sinners than the rest of us. What we are saying is that, like any sin, homosexuality

[petrakid]

is not only sinful to God, but it is destructive to God's creation and against his order. to say that Luther didn't care about the order of creation is to confess your lack of understanding of Luther. I don't mean to criticize you, but look at it this way: Like any of the 10 commandments, they are there for our benefit. Encouraging Christians to keep the commandments isn't legalism, it is God's will. Why? So our lives will be a blessing to others and lived in service to Him...

[petrakid]

NOT for legalistic reasons, or so that God will look at us and say "they deserve this". We do it out of response for what He has done for us on the cross. THAT IS Lutheran theology, THAT is Genesis. THAT is Paul, THAT is Christ! But, for the sake of the possibility that I could be wrong...find me one passage, in context, from scripture that substantiates homosexuality as acceptable by God. Be a good theologian now, and a good Lutheran, and teach me something.

[bunnycatch3r]

I'll be your "good Lutheran" petrakid:

2Sam 1:26 "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women".

And let's not forget 1Sam 1:41 "David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded."

Very beautiful, very romantic,and quite gay!

[petrakid]

What? Wow! You're using THAT as your prooftext? You do well to learn Hebrew grammar before you take scripture and use it against God. As far as 1 Sam 1:41, there is no 1 Sam 1:41...don't sure where that came from. Regardless they are certainly not proof texts saying that God accepts homosexuality as godly and right. Perhaps proof texts that show that godly love between two of God's children (men and/or women) is...godly...unless you're calling Jesus a homosexual in which case you've...

[bunnycatch3r]

Sorry petrakid, my mistake I meant 1Sam 20:41 -I'll try to be more careful. This is the passage where David and Jonathan cry with one another while making out. Their love is definitely is not "godly love between two of God's children"- David describes it as "passing the love of women". And I'm not overlooking those other texts. You asked for an example of homosexuality acceptable by God. David is Isreal's greatest rulers and here he is in scripture professing an erotic love with Jonathan.

[petrakid]

does it say they're making out? When Paul says "greet each other with a holy kiss" does that mean we should make out with others of the same sex? you read something to us and add your own twist to it, don't you? David and Jonathan were not homosexual lovers - how could you think that?? Or do you do like so many and look for verses that prove what you want to prove? If we go by your spin, we'd have to assume that Italians are all gay, not to mention many muslims. do you want us to assume?

[bunnycatch3r]

No a kiss among friends (not particularly in this culture) is innocent. However, kissing couples coupled (did you like that?) with an affection "passing the love of women" is suspect. And yes, I'm guilty at all times (if I can help it) of blatant eisegesis. The word of God is far too important to let others interpret it for me.

[petrakid]

Then maybe it would be better for you to let it interpret itself. I mean there are a LOT of things in scripture, or dare I say in life, that, if approached with any personal opinion or desire, can be taken to mean anything. If you study scripture, and you look for answers through good exegetical research, the answers you find will be very limited and will never be in contrary to the cross OR to the rest of scripture. God's Word CANNOT contradict itself. ...

[petrakid]

... so when you interpret a passage like Ex 31 or Ex 20 (the 3rd command) you must also look at what Christ did on the sabbath. They're not two different things. So if Christ did break the law, how could he be our savior? Thus he must not have broke the law. Likewise, when you look at a passage like 1 Sam 20, you have to take Paul's words into account as well. So either David and John DID commit sin, or what they did was not homosexual. In either case, the sin itself is not 'unsinned'.

[petrakid]

By the way, "sabbath for man not man for sabbath" does not mean man has the right to interpret WHO or WHAT the sabbath is in any way he wants to. Otherwise we'd all have all sorts of skewed beliefs and dogma about the nature of Christ! the greatest presupposition brought to the table in our 21st century is that of postmodernism and individual truths. It's a lie. there is only one truth, one God, one savior and Lord Jesus Christ between us and God.

[bunnycatch3r]

"Sabbath for man not man for sabbath" -(IMHO) is one of the most revolutionary things Jesus ever said (besides "I and the father are one") - fully understood, it dislodges scripture, doctrine, and tradition from the circle of stars and places them under our feet. Keeping the sabbath is not merely part of the law -it's one of the commandments! However, I am persuaded that from a confessional perspective it's meaning may not be clear or is "very limited". How do you understand it?

[petrakid]

Well, if we look at the Book of Hebrews, we realize that Christ is the Sabbath of which we find our rest. You see, Christ did keep the commandments perfectly, but not according to man's understanding of the commandments, but according to God who gave them. This is why he could pick grain on the Sabbath - the law that forbade it was NOT God's law, but man's. He said this himself. thus when we look at the commandments, we must look at them from God's perspective, not out own...

[petrakid]

...So, when we read the 6th command, the only conclusion that we can make is that it is more than just 'do not cheat on your wives'. Christ again clarifies this for us, as does Paul the Apostle. Marriage is a symbol of Christ and the Church, thus it is not based on lust, or on a need for love that is outside of God's definition of marriage. The homosexuals I have met, those who have repented, they all have concluded that it was their sin (be it biological or rational), and not God's design.

[bunnycatch3r]

I find your instruction to look at scripture from "God's perspective" to be presumptuous and dangerous. For example, if we looked at slavery from God's perspective we are are not only permitted to buy them and treat them as property (Lev 25:44-46) but we're even allowed to sell our own children as slaves (Ex 21:7-11). Do you really believe it is "God's design" that we own slaves? If not then why should "God's definition" of marriage be any less misguided?

[petrakid]

No, see, you make a presupposition. You use slavery as the example without any understand on what Scripture teaches about it. Being someone who knows about american slavery and the civil war, you presume that the slavery being discussed in Lev is the same thing...well is not. Thus you are not looking at Scripture from God's perspective, but from your own. If you want to gain some insight on biblical slavery, I encourage you to do so. There are a LOT of book on the subject,

[petrakid]

mainly because we Americans only see the horrible side of slavery taught to us in schools by teachers who also do not understand. An example, it was an acceptable practice (by society) to sell ones children into service of another in times of famine when a family could not afford to feed their children. Does this mean that God loves famine? Certainly not! But there was famine, and people had to do what they had to do to survive. That doesn't make it right, but necessary.

[petrakid]

If you say that God's definition of marriage is misguided, then why not say that Christ's death on the cross is too? I mean where do you draw the line between what is God's Word and His teachings vs. what is just misguided? Who are YOU to draw that line?? I just gave you a fair explanation for what slavery was in the OT and NT. I did not have to change Scripture to do it. Can you do the same when it comes to Homosexuality? You still haven't discussed 1 Cor 6 with me, or 1 Tim 1 (or Rom 1)

[bunnycatch3r]

You're defending slavery! Oh -because biblical slavery is not the horrible, nasty sort that we had here in America -then explain -"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21) According to the bible we can beat our slaves just so long as they survive a day or two.

[petrakid]

did I say I'm defending slavery? I defend scripture (not that it needs it). You, on the other hand don't agree with something it says, and put on blinders so you don't have to learn anything and become wise. My worldview says "Thus saith the Lord" and my approach to learning what Christ has to tell me comes from that. Your worldview says "If I don't like it, I don't have to agree". And yet you still haven't answered me on 1 Cor 6, 1 Tim 1 or Rom 1.

[bunnycatch3r]

God created me with both a free will and a conscience. It's unfair of you to say that I wear blinders. I pointed out for example that God's ideas on marriage are inconsistent, that instituting slavery was evil, that Jesus intentionally broke the sabbath. Blinders would have prohibited me from seeing any of this -I would instead have defended or excused them.  And as for your three Pauline verses - I apologize that I have not yet responded. I'll go over them tonight.

[petrakid]

No, those blinders would not have. You state your claims based on what you think, and not on truth. You should also read Luther's Bondage of the Will to better understand just how much free will you don't have. For example, we can eat whatever we like, but only within the bondage that we MUST eat to live. We Americans LOVE free will talk, but when it boils down to the nuts and bolts, we don't have as much as we think. We either serve God or we serve Satan.

[bunnycatch3r]

I find 1Cor 6, 1Tim 1, and Rom 1 confusing and maybe you can help me understand. They all support Lev 18:22. However, there are very few Old Testament laws that we Lutherans observe today. For example, not working on Saturdays, What is the criteria by which we ignore some and observe others?

[petrakid]

There is a difference between ceremonial law (kill lambs for atonement, passover, etc.) and Mosaic law (do not kill, do not commit adultry, etc). Unfortunately I don't have the space here to get into to specifics about the law. All I CAN say is, Col 2, and Heb 4 (on sabbaths). We are not required as Christians to keep ANY law, but we curb our lives around them, knowing that God created those laws to show us what we are meant to be. Yes, that means homosexuality is not included.

[bunnycatch3r]

So ceremonial laws are pretty much outdated curiosities but moral laws are still relevant?

[petrakid]

I read what Paul says. We don't try and keep the commandments in order to work our way to God or win his approval, but we try to keep them fully knowing that they are meant to make our life and the lives of our neighbors better. Ceremonial laws (killing lambs, festivals, etc.), as Paul says, mean nothing. We live by faith, not by some legal practice that neither pleases God nor atones for sin. But, sin is still a real thing - it still exists and we still must die to it each day...

[petrakid]

What does that mean? We must not deceive ourselves into thinking that sin is not real or that it does not affect us. What was Satans temptation? That the command God gave Adam - not to eat from the tree - was not really a command and that there would be no consequences. When the question is raised, "did God really say...", the only place we can Go to find the answer is God's Word. He has given the answer concerning Homosexuality, and he was quite clear on it.

[bunnycatch3r]

I don't have a problem with "did God really say..." - My problem is -should I trust him for moral guidance? I mean after all, he institutes slavery (even for one's own children), capital punishment for just about every offense (collecting firewood on Saturday??), guilty not only of genocide (remember the Ammonites?) but he wiped out the entire planet! Oh and throw in eternal torture - I can't think of anyone less moral.  Can you?

[petrakid]

Moral guidance? Where do morals come from? Are they inventions of man or just agreements made in a society?

I understand that this IS a difficult thing. I mean how CAN a loving, kind, and compassionate God allow things like this? If I could give you answers to all of this and make it all click in your mind (and my own) I would. Perhaps the most difficult question of them all is: why are some people not saved??

[petrakid]

But what benefit is there in accusing God or putting him on trial? I mean there comes a point when one has to say "I don't understand this and because I don't understand it is hard for me to agree. But, God is my creator. He gives me what I need each day to live, and he has given me His son. Who am I to talk back to God?" It may not be comfortable or even 'popular' to consider that, but is it not the Truth? Perhaps you would do well to read Job, for it deals with this head on.

[bunnycatch3r]

It's been a while but Job sounds like a good idea.

[petrakid]

disowned a lot more than just good consistent and proper study of Scripture. And, you're forgetting to mention 1 Cor 6, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1 & 2, and, Genesis 2. Are you just overlooking those very obvious texts for the sake of texts that have nothing to do with homosexuality, or are you just pulling my strings to try and make me look bad? I am not defending myself, nor am I defending Scripture. God's Word speaks for itself. You gain nothing by denying what it says.

[bunnycatch3r]

I have no idea if Jesus was gay -although, anyone who would intentionally break the sabbath (a crime punishable by death) in order to teach compassion wouldn't think twice about taking a gay lover to teach 1john 4:16. I'm surprised they don't teach that in seminary.

[petrakid]

I see what you're trying to do, and it won't work. Jesus did NOT break the sabbath! HE IS the sabbath!! Or do you not read other passages on what (who) the sabbath really is? the so called crime was punishable not by God's law, but by man's law, and THAT is a fine example of why the issue of homosexual sin does not change simply because you don't like it. Read those verses I told you to read, and tell me how it can be any plainer.

[bunnycatch3r]

No, actually it's God's law: EX 31:15 " Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death". However, Jesus teaches in Mark 2:27 that "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" Therefore, I extend this revolutionary principle thus: "Scripture was made for man not man for Scripture!" -and so now I read those other verses...

[crimthann86]

well prostitution hurts her.. we're not talking about prostitution either.. it's hurts to be alone.

my faith is in that God who came in weakness.. and accepted me as I am, and in that promise I am saved.

I have seen gay people destroyed because they were told that their feelings are wrong.. Jesus would not do this, he only destroyed the vanity of the self-righteous.. In the real world your theology stinks. they need love and you spout 'your' law - and I'm done with this video.. you win..

[petrakid]

just don't be scared to let it find you, because when it does, you will be free.

[windham666]

pffft. like barney said, what planet are you on?

[petrakid]

The same planet you are, buddy, but I tend to see things with a different pair of eyes. You be the judge as to whether or not what I say is the truth. but if it is possible that it IS the truth, then dont you think its in your best interest to find out? just denying something does not make it go away.

[petrakid]

you ARE right...'religion' is tyranny. Any oppressive and enslaving system of indoctrination developed by humans in order to control or deflate the truth or true freedom is tyranny. Anyone who takes a serious look at Christianity would realize - it stands against such tyranny more than anything or anyone. Why? Because the most tyrannical religion in the world is the belief in disbelief. Think about it...

[windham666]

you are blind. 1000% hogwash, that is what you are full of - ancient middle eastern riddles for tyrannical goat herders. the notion that your religion stands against tyranny, and that atheism is tyrannical, is just plain laughable. but whatever. i don't care what silly ancient myths you believe in, as long as we maintain a complete separation of church and state, have at it. . if you folks acted like the amish, all would be well. but no00, so it's war.

[petrakid]

What's complete separation? By the way, i could say exactly the same thing to you. you are blind 1000% hogwash, that's what you're full of - ancient riddles for tyrannical god-haters...the nothing that your religion stands against tyranny and Christianity is tyrannical, is just plain laughable...see you think your comment really 'hurts' me, but it don't. ive heard it all before. if you want to be smart and try and prove something to me - try saying something wise for a change or don't speak

[windham666]

so tell me homer, what makes you so certain your beloved Thor is creator god of the universe? are you sure Allah is not more powerful and real? Why do you choose to follow Thor instead of alll the others?

[crimthann86]

because of that cool big hammer he's got.

[apyrdct]

And if you think that folk don't notice your attempt to gag viewers by posting only supportive comments, you must be even dumber than this video makes you out to be.

[CTSFWedu]

Thanks so much for keeping the comments civil. To this point, no comments have been removed. God's blessings.

[apyrdct]

That's fine for you Dean, but you must leave me out of it. If you have a good reason why my government needs to be involved with the business of who I choose to make this civil contract with, then let's hear it. If you've got nothing but 'it's in my holy book', then you can pick a number, get in line and suck my thumb.

[cosmithb]

I'm confused... Where in this message did Dr. Wenthe mention the government at all?

[apyrdct]

Oh excellent! If you are not concerned with my ability to form a civil marriage contract with the person of my choosing, then we don't have a problem. I'm not in the least concerned with what you do and don't permit in your places of worship - most of which I wouldn't enter on a bet.

[crimthann86]

I am pretty sure Leo X thought dirty little Augustinian monk was sectarian too..

[lastdaysguitar]

To approve ordination of those in a sinful lifestyle of sexual perversion (homosexuality) is beyond heresy.

It is completely satanic.

ELCA have become Ichabod.

Christian, leave that place! Find a bible believing church!

God have mercy on those too fearful to leave this satanic wicked imitation to find a TRUE place of worship that esteems Your Word above their sin-filled concepts of political correctness and "hospitality".

The vote was 66.6... coincidence?

No way!

[sundrop1974]

I saw that too, 666, i was wondering if that was an over satanic symbolism.

[MrRockythesquirrel]

lastdayguitar, e.l.c.a. simply came to the reality that the scriptures have been mis-interpreted and taken out of context. and as a result it has and had caused a great deal of suffering to folks who didn't deserve it.

[crimthann86]

No matter what a church body decides the sanctity of my marriage takes place every day as lead by the Holy Spirit in love in respect for each other. Blessing the union of somebody else has no bearing on my marriage what so ever. This stuff is between me, my wife and God and is not even a sacriment in my church. CTS would be better teaching about grace that is open to everybody.. Respectfully submitted in the spirit of civil discussion. :)

[CTSFWedu]

We understand the controversial and sensitive nature of this official statement by Concordia Theological Seminary. While we certainly welcome comments from both sides of the issue, comments will be tightly moderated and kept in a spirit of civil discussion. Thank you, and may the Lord bless you.