tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post4936141369518776830..comments2024-02-14T11:24:47.692-08:00Comments on Just and Sinner: Lutheranism and Covenant TheologyAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07355003765385878787noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-82086090773544084812014-05-22T08:14:10.646-07:002014-05-22T08:14:10.646-07:00just ran across this after spending the better par...just ran across this after spending the better part of 2 days watching Jim Staley's sermons on you tube....ty for your words and clear definitions Jordan.....<br />A Wretched and Redeemed Child of Godhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15504086348154944390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-62311974560884607712013-10-07T09:28:37.141-07:002013-10-07T09:28:37.141-07:00Other questionably Lutheran teachings:
1. Once b...Other questionably Lutheran teachings:<br /><br />1. Once baptized, always saved.<br />2. Man descended from Apes (not preached from pulpit). Classic evolution is true.<br />3. The story of Creation in the first chapter of Genesis cannot be believed literally.<br />4. Questions the limitation of Lutherans to only two or three sacraments.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-46039418159019151902013-10-06T21:15:59.300-07:002013-10-06T21:15:59.300-07:00I forgot one issue: He condemns Biblicism, readin...I forgot one issue: He condemns Biblicism, reading and interpreting the Bible literally. He uses this position to ridicule the idea of a six day creation and that Methusela was over 900 years old.<br /><br />I could never figure out if this position is tolerated in the LCMS so I never made an issue out of it.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-30375078752778547102013-10-06T05:59:59.031-07:002013-10-06T05:59:59.031-07:00Yes, there is an extensive examination of one who ...Yes, there is an extensive examination of one who converts from another tradition, and usually some time at one of the Seminaries. It's likely that the question about covenantal baptism wasn't even brought up. What was the other non-Lutheran teaching heard from the pulpit?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07355003765385878787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-1605342842891832472013-10-05T23:00:47.947-07:002013-10-05T23:00:47.947-07:00Why would an LCMS pastor be preaching this concept...Why would an LCMS pastor be preaching this concept in a Lutheran church if it is absolutely not Lutheran? My LCMS pastor always makes the following statement prior to baptizing an infant in our church:<br /><br />"This child comes to the baptismal font by way of Covenant Birthright." <br /><br />He believes that the Church Catholic has always taught this and he seems to believe that his position is consistent with Lutheranism.<br /><br />My pastor used to be a Reformed pastor but converted to Lutheranism. <br /><br />Does the LCMS require some sort of extra training or at least some screening prior to ordaining a "convert" pastor into the LCMS? <br /><br />I really like my pastor. He is a terrific preacher and our church is growing, mostly due to him. But this is now the second non-Lutheran teaching that he has taught from the pulpit and in catechism/new member classes. I have now lost confidence that I can trust what he says to really be "Lutheran".<br /><br />I am very disillusioned.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-56059902050501310882013-10-05T06:49:56.296-07:002013-10-05T06:49:56.296-07:00Lutherans do not baptize infants based on the idea...Lutherans do not baptize infants based on the idea of a familial covenant. Rather, we do it based on the command of Christ and the promises attached to baptism. The reason why it is the children of Christians who are baptized, is because baptism is the beginning of a life of faith which has to then be nurtured by instruction in Scripture, church attendance, etc.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07355003765385878787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-40459258245173849122013-10-04T23:14:53.543-07:002013-10-04T23:14:53.543-07:00Hi Pastor Cooper,
Would you mind explaining somet...Hi Pastor Cooper,<br /><br />Would you mind explaining something to me? Do Lutherans believe that the children of Christian parents are born with a "covenant birthright"? And do Lutherans believe that the children of non-baptized, non-believers should NOT be baptized as they do not have this covenantal "right" to baptism?<br /><br />So in other words, in Lutheran teaching, the only infants who should be baptized are those infants of Trinitarian baptized parents?<br /><br />I've heard some Lutherans make statements supporting this view and others condemning this view. Which is correct?<br /><br />Thanks!Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-87094579563533364822009-09-25T13:41:15.363-07:002009-09-25T13:41:15.363-07:00I understand where you are coming from as I have r...I understand where you are coming from as I have read most of the important literature related to the New Perspective on Paul. I would encourage you to read the several blog posts I have put up responding to these ideas. I also recommend the book The Lutheran Paul and His Critics by Stephen Westerholm. He makes a good exegetical case from Galatians of the law-gospel distinction.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07355003765385878787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-10998618816219907492009-09-25T03:16:33.311-07:002009-09-25T03:16:33.311-07:00I think this is an important issue to discuss, bec...I think this is an important issue to discuss, because so much comes down to definitions.<br /><br />Understanding what "law" Paul is opposing is critical to understanding Paul's whole message; get that wrong, and you've got a different Gospel.<br /><br />The "Law" Paul contrasted to "faith" was the Mosaic Law and nothing else. The Mosaic Law was only given at the time of Moses and applied only to the Jews. It was not the same 'law' as in the Garden of Eden. Further, the reward/righteousness the Law offered was an earthly/temporal one, it couldn't save the soul. The 'life' it promised was earthly blessings (eg land, long life, big family, wealth, etc). <br /><br />This picture is the only way Paul's message makes sense (eg Gal 3:15-18 can only be the Mosaic Law). To go 'expanding' this into Law/Gospel and Covenant of Works/Grace is a misreading of Paul's message. <br /><br />Paul's MAIN concern was never Pelagianism (that was a secondary issue), because if it was his repeated 'Gentiles versus Jews' comments would be illogical (for both are equally liable). Rather, the main concern was a form of Sola Gratia; a racism with the Jews/Judaizers considering themselves a superior race by the sheer gratuity of God making them born Jewish. That's the heart of Romans 2:18-3:8 (a section often ignored/misunderstood); not about a 'courtroom.'Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.com