Half full?

What does it mean for Jesus to be with you in hard places, or that Jesus "gets in the boat with us"?

Or to ask it another way, what need is there for Jesus?

Perhaps it is not just the fact that Jesus is WITH us, as much as it is that it is JESUS who with us that makes the real difference. Recall St. Peter's great confession, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!" Many people can be WITH me through the trials and difficulties of my life, but, honestly, not all are helpful. I have found that it is those who are with me who remind me that Jesus Christ is my Savior from sin--the power that threatens to undo me ultimately--that have made the greatest difference in my life, especially during times of temporal trials or storms, no matter how severe they may seem ("...what need is there for Jesus?" a la Peter's question above). Having Jesus "in the boat with me," therefore, means having a Savior who was willing to take on humanity, suffer, die, and rise again for our justification.

Pastor Christine presents a number of interesting and important issues. She uses descriptive language and metaphors. However, in these times of "temporal trials or storms," as "Irenaeus" says, I believe it is important to use clear language, without, of course, being offensive, and we must always keep within the clear guidelines the Moderator has given us.

In her description of a "different hope than the hope some churches are dishing out," is Pastor Christine speaking of the Prosperity Gospel? She spoke of Jesus reaching out to Peter and putting "him back into the boat with the others," and says, "I am excited and filled with wonder to be part of this family Jesus has put together!" I am wondering what she means by "family." I am guessing that she means the ELCA "family." Personally, I think there are a lot of many different kinds of people in the boat of Peter.

Since our discussion with TheHawg was relegated to "the boneyard," as he said, I would like to pick up on something he wrote: "The class is graded on a curve as Peter aptly points out." Although I agree with Kevin's general worldview, I think this comment is not accurate. We are to "wash our robes white" -- not light gray (grey). Our God is the God of the Ten Commandments, and they are set in stone, so to speak. Just because I can say that I am doing better than Mel Gibson, that doesn't mean I am doing well. We are heading toward Moral Relativism here.

In the Moderator's guidelines, there is a wonderful piece of advice: "Is this something I'd want my favorite Sunday school teacher to read?" Mine was Mr. Samuelson, and I last saw him in 1961. He was a man of integrity, to use Kevin's word, and he was solidly rooted and grounded in the Scripture. These days, I hear lots of talk about Baptism and Grace, but nothing about confession and Scripture. As several persons have pointed out, Luther's Bondage of the Will teaches that we have limited Free Will. I think this is a serious problem. I believe this is quite possibly the theological and philosophical premise of the Hollywood Culture, and this has all but destroyed the family in the US during the last century.

Pastor Christine writes: "Look to Jesus with hope." Of course, but we also need to look at the issues.

Luisa: Limited free will is exactly what we have in accordance with salvation. We cannot choose God. God chooses us. It is pure, unmerited grace. This is why I said, "God grades on a curve." We all deserve to fail (Romans 3), but through Christ's merit, we pass!

Luther's "Freedom of a Christian" spells this out boldly in that he argues that nothing will make our souls clean. Nothing. Only by God's grace are they made whole. This is why our free will is limited. We cannot cleanse them no matter what we try to do.

However, once they are cleansed, our souls are at war with our physical nature. This is why I quoted those other two quotes from Luther's treatise in the last discussion. Here is where free will comes into play. Our nature can reject what God has done to our soul. We can rebel against it and refuse to seek to live in that relationship.

We don't have the free will to enter into a relationship with God. ("No one says, 'Jesus is Lord.' except by the power of the Holy Spirit.") We do have free will to exit it. Yet, even if we exit that relationship and reject Christ, He never gives up on us. That is something to be truly hopeful for!

Irenaeus,

The point I was driving at was that "the power that threatens to undo me ultimately" is God executing justice against a sinner. Without that in focus, Jesus is just another counselor at best and pretend savior at worst.

TheHawg,

I mostly agree with what you say, but I think speaking of cleansed souls being at war with our physical nature is precariously close to Manicheism and/or gnosticism. Our physical nature is part of God's good creation. God entered the world and took on a physical nature in the Incarnation. This is part of why I prefer Elert's new creation terminology-- 'cleansing' of the soul is putting the old soul to death and creating new, ex nihilo. Up until we die, we live between these two natures, which is why I disagree when you say that we have free will to exit the relationship God creates. Our old self yet lives in bondage and will exit that relationship. We must daily drown the Old Adam or Eve in the waters of Baptism.

Even if it bothers you to think that we might not have the free will to reject Christ consider this: if God has truly cleansed our soul/made a new creation within us/saved us/etc, how/why would we possibly ever choose to reject Christ? If God can't fix us well enough to no longer desire sin/reject Christ/etc, how is that any true fix in the first place, or any better than a temporary fix? That also implies one of two things: something more than Christ is necessary for our salvation, or the salvation offered is second-rate. In addition to neither choice being particularly enticing, they are contrary to the Augsburg Confession and Apology, Article 4.

Peter,

By arbitrarily eliminating any iota of human responsibility to place our faith in Christ, you turn Christianity into a fatalistic ritual that incentivizes complacency, and makes us more comfortable in our sin. This also has serious ramifications that even include Christ’s own temptations by the devil. Christ’s sinless life is only extraordinary if He was actually human, and able to resist temptation even unto death; which He did, notwithstanding the momentary lapses described in scripture (Father, if you are willing, please take this cup of suffering away from me, yet not my will, but yours be done). I am not one of those who think this was all a play designed to tug on the heart strings of future generations, in order to lead them to Himself. I believe this was an actual battle of wills between God and the devil. Even though God the father declares the end from the beginning, God the human son must have had the ability to fail, or this whole story was just some kind of morbid play acting that continued throughout history with martyrs going to their deaths before they will denounce their faith; for no reason.

If God wanted to make believers of the whole world; He could do it in a heartbeat by appearing before the masses. But then everybody would come to believe in Him not out of love, but out of fear. This would not be an unfettered free choice. There must be a reason that God (who spoke and the universe leapt into existence) wants us to come to Him by free choice, not by coercion. I believe God wants the people who will worship and serve Him throughout eternity, to be there because they chose to be. Why would God plant the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden Eden, and then tell Adam and Eve not to eat from it; and then allowed a snake into the terrarium, to temp his own children? There is a mystery here that has to include some form of man’s responsibility, not only for his sin, but also his desire to seek God.

Davey and Luisa: You each have the same problem: 1 Corinthians 12:3.

It is undeniable that human beings have free will. It is also undeniable that human beings--of their own free will--make bad decisions and act wrongly.

St. Paul explains his own experience this way: "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 that the law is good. But in fact it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do," (Romans 7.15-19; nrsv).

And in the Gospel of John, Jesus Christ himself says, "No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me," (John 6.44a; nrsv).

Every attempt to emphasize human responsibility in choosing and acting deprives Christ of more and more glory until at last Christ himself is a mere bystander as we, by our own powers and decisions, lift ourselves to heaven.

We are sinners and not just the lower parts of our existence but even what we regard as the highest best--our intellect, our will--are in need of Christ and his salvation.

TheHawg,

I guess our differences lie in the timing; which came first the chicken or the egg?

A man who does not have the Holy Spirit can say Jesus is cursed.

But WHEN that same man receives the Holy Spirit, THEN the story changes.

If a man who confesses Jesus turns and says “He is cursed”; we say the man never had the Holy Spirit in the first place.

I believe faith come by hearing, (and THEN) and hearing by the word of God. I also believe there are God’s elect that he has chosen before the foundation of the earth. I don’t believe “elect” means God programed certain in individuals to love Him, and everybody else is just out of luck. I believe God, who sees the end from the beginning, knows who will eventually accept the Holy Spirit and confess Jesus on their own. This is why Jesus tells “US” to go and make disciples of the whole world. The great commission is just not needed if the Holy Spirit is doing all the work. Our job is to preach the good news to all so that Gods elect who are still in the dark will be brought into the light AFTER hearing. God, who loved Jacob and hated Esau, even before they were born, is treating me the same way. So I once said Jesus is cursed, but God, who knows my future, exposed me to people who already have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them, so I would hear the word, and THEN believe and confess Jesus, be baptized and receive the Holy Spirit. And this process will continue until every one of God’s children have been found like the lost coin or sheep. I believe that just because God knows in advance who will confess Jesus, it does not negate the responsibility of those whom he knows in will not; and it is not God’s fault. Thus we solve this issue of free will and the responsibility of man without the circular argument that God is responsible for everything, and we are found guilty for it. We must find a way give God all the glory, without faulting “Him” for making us this way. No power in heaven or on earth has ever forced a man to sin or to be good. We could never reconcile God as being just in one breath; and take away God’s ability to judge man’s personal responsibility with the next.

You and Peter make very compelling arguments for the Holy Spirit acting first so we can’t boast. But if the Holy Spirit coerces even one man to confess Jesus against his will; then God is unjust and is playing favorites with humanity. Like I said before, God the Father, God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit, could make all of us believers in an instant by just revealing Himself in person. Just like the Bible says:

It is written: "'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God

I do not believe it will help you when you are giving your account to God to say “well you didn’t send your Holy Spirit to me God; you sent Him to these folk over hear all dressed in white, but not to me, so it’s your fault”.

Seeing certain posters succumb to Calvinist and Fundamentalist theological precepts is disheartening. Then again, this also helps to explain these same posters' discontent with the ELCA.

davey,

I think part of your misunderstanding is that you have a very abstract view of God and what God does. We cannot know God in his supreme majesty. All of these 'God could reveal Himself to everyone', etc, pie-in-the-sky things are technically true, but irrelevant. What matters is what happens here on earth, and the way in which God comes to us here on earth is in the Person of Jesus Christ. Even the Holy Spirit does not work invisibly, but works through the Church, through Word and Sacrament, through us (or so claims the Augsburg Confession, Article 7 and 8, IIRC). The Great Commission is about God's pipeline to distribute God's goodies-- Word and Sacrament, and preparing the valve-turners and handle-operators to help Word and Sacrament flow to those in need of it.

It's also not quite a person confessing Jesus against that person's will, so much as having that will destroyed and made anew so that said person wants to confess Jesus. This side of the grave, we are not entirely free from sin. It's only after we stand before God at the final judgment to give an accounting of ourselves, that we can be fully free of sin. Incidentally, that accounting of ourselves will not stand up to God's judgment, no matter what we did in our lives. Our only hope is: "Lord, have mercy on us for Jesus' sake".

As far as this making one complacent in sin, that's the Law speaking, not the Promise. Trust in Christ leads to good fruit because we are freed from the sin and the desire to bear bad fruit. Interestingly, Luther writes that when we are tempted by the devil, that we can always fall back on 'I am baptized'-- that our refuge from temptation is the Promise that sustains us.

Peter,

You enter in to the circular argument again! It's either our fault for choosing sin, or its God's fault for making us sinful; which is it?

Davey, much of your post regarding the need for the Great Commission resonates deeply; however, there is still the problem of free will.

You and I argue that one cannot confess Jesus as Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

This is God's work done through the proclaimed Word. Agreed.

However, here is where we divulge. You argue that if someone who was once saying, "Jesus is Lord." then turns and says, "Let Jesus be cursed.", then that person never had the Holy Spirit to begin with.

How do you know?

Such a statement suggests the impossiblity of walking away from the Holy Spirit's tug once it acts on you. That would negate free will, wouldn't it? (Which is Peter's argument, btw.)

And if it is possible to walk away from the Spirit's action in your heart, wouldn't that then make it an unforgivable sin--as Jesus aptly points out?

If you wish to say that we have complete free will, you must apply it in every circumstance, including if the Holy Spirit has led one to say, "Jesus is Lord."

Michael: It would be helpful to remember that everyone is a fundamentalist. It just depends upon what one's fundamentals are.

TheHawg,

No, we are in complete agreement. My three examples of a man saying "Jesus is cursed" were from a stand point of argument only; to show that we do have free will and we are all responsible alone and only. I don't believe you can lose salvation, but you can definitely deny it. The Holy Spirit helps us in this regard, but does not force us.

TheHawg,

No, we are in complete agreement. My three examples of a man saying "Jesus is cursed" were from a stand point of argument only; to show that we do have free will and we are all responsible alone and only. I don't believe you can lose salvation, but you can definitely deny it. The Holy Spirit helps us in this regard, but does not force us.

TheHawg,

No, we are in complete agreement. My three examples of a man saying "Jesus is cursed" were from a stand point of argument only; to show that we do have free will and we are all responsible for our sin alone and only. I don't believe you can lose salvation, but you can definitely deny it. The Holy Spirit helps us in this regard, but does not force us.

(Off to read "Bondage of the Will" and refresh my memory.)

Dave (just going to use that one since you keep switching computers :-)): In regards to your comment about Peter's circular argument, it is important to remember the origination of sin.

1. We had no free will in our own creation; neither did we have free will as to whether or not we were to be in realtionship with God at creation. God created man and put him in the garden. There was automatically a relationship between the Creator and His creation. God didn't create man and ask, "Do you want me to be your God?" No. It was a given.

2. So that we might not simply be "puppets on a string", God gave us the free will to choose to continue in that perfect relationship. Eat the fruit, and things would deterriorate quickly. The relationship would be broken.

3. Temptation was offered up. The desire to be like God when we didn't have the capacity to do so was too much. We chose poorly.

4. As a result, we are born in bondage to sin, and we cannot free ourselves. Romans 3 speaks to that very well, I think.

I'll go no further at this point, but suffice to say, God created us perfectly. But because of the original sin, we are now born in bondage to that sin. Not God's fault. Our own. And it is only God through Christ who can break that bondage.

Katherine: From a Lutheran standpoint, we are indeed created in the image and likeness of God, but that doesn't mean we are completely free.

Original sin does not just weaken us. It condemns us. God demands perfection: Matthew 5:48. We are born imperfect. Even infants are born into this state. For an infant the world revolves around him/her. And when the world revolves around you, you are breaking the first commandment. It's inescapable, and you cannot choose to leave this state. Again, Romans 3. Sins aren't just the things we do. Sin is a state of being.

Only through Christ can this state of being find its cure. For certain, in this lifetime, it is not overcome, but we are changed. We become both saint and sinner at the same time--ontologically speaking. These two natures strive for dominance, and it is through the growing of faith, as Luther articulated in his treatise "The Freedom of a Christian" that we strive to choose between good and evil. Free will comes into play here--we can choose to respond to God's action or we can dismiss it.

Katharina: God grades on the curve. I do not. :-D (I hope you took this as a joke. It is meant that way, but unfortunately, you cannot see my cheese eating grin as I type.)

TheHawg,

Ok, I looked through On Christian Freedom (source for those intersted here: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/luther-freedomchristian.asp ). I think the idea that we must reject or accept God's gift is not well supported in that document. For example:

True then are these two sayings: Good works do not make a good man, but a good man does good works. Bad works do not make a bad man, but a bad man does bad works. Thus it is always necessary that the substance or person should be good before any good works can be done, and that good works should follow and proceed from a good person. As Christ says: "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." (Matt. vii. 18) Now it is clear that the fruit does not bear the tree, nor does the tree grow on the fruit; but, on the contrary, the trees bear the fruit and the fruit grows on the trees.

As then trees must exist before their fruit, and as the fruit does not make the tree either good or bad, but, on the contrary, a tree of either kind produces fruit of the same kind; so must first the person of the man be good or bad, before he can do either a good or a bad work; and his works do not make him tad or good, but he himself makes his works either bad or good.

It's not about whether we choose or not. It's about whether Christ has chosen us and the Promise we're given is that He has, despite all of the times we've chosen against God and against Christ. Our response to Jesus was crucifixion. Even the first disciples responded by betrayal and falling away from him, even though they knew Jesus to be the Messiah and knew that He was to suffer and die. Focusing on our free will is to miss the point-- our "free will" is not free enough to save us or even to keep us saved.

davebob,

To your quesiton- who's fault? It's ours. Bad fruit is bad fruit, and bad trees are cut down. We're bad trees. We've made ourselves bad trees because we want to be more than trees. We want to be as God. God's judgment upon us for this is wrath. Why did God make it possible for us to fall under God's wrath? That's for the hidden God to know and us to guess at. The problem is that our attempts to know the hidden God come up empty every time (and leave us even deeper in wrath). There's always one more mask. It is only through Jesus that God is revealed. And there we find God's mercy. New life grows in us.

Peter,

I think we are closer to the same thinking now. It's our fault alone and only.

As to why God would make it possible for us to fall under His wrath; it is the byproduct of free will. God gives us (or we took it) in the Garden of Eden. God placed the tree there knowing we would fall to temptation. He allowed the snake into the terrarium to temp His own children. He allowed us to choose so that we could not come back and blame Him. Eve did not need that fruit. She was in paradise and chose to disobey God. But the outcome of this ability to choose is that when we do choose to follow God, it's our fault also. So our Father has children that seek to do His will on their own.

Our attempts to know the hidden God does not leave us deeper in wrath if we get it wrong.

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.

The problem with your second paragraph is that it still doesn't quite realize the enormity of the problem: we won't choose to follow God.

I would say that trying to know the hidden God leads us into wrath by definition; the quest to know God the Father on our terms always ends poorly for us. Yet at the same time, I'm not sugggesting we can't question God's existence or ask questions. Here's why: saying Christ alone and only for our salvation means that there is only one way we can know God the Father: through the Son. If we look for God in places other than Jesus, we get it wrong. There are plenty of examples of this: all of the other religions. Judaism and Islam are probably the easiest to understand, since they openly claim to be seeking the same God we are. But Pantheism (nature-worship) is also looking for God, but in nature, and atheism generally ends up as trying to find God in oneself, or finding God in our scientific knowledge. We all have a quest for God, but we end up looking in the wrong places. The only place we can find God is on the cross, in our world, dying, on our behalf. God's judgment is changed for this reason alone and only, not through our efforts to 'be good people' or because we got the quest for God right, but because God's only Son died on our behalf. The only way the quest for God ends well for us is when the Son comes to us.

Does this mean universalism? Only in the sense that God's promise is for all of us, regardless of what we do with our lives. On the Day of Judgment, what we've done will be as dirty rags regardless of how we've lived our life. It's all about God's Son. And in the meantime, clinging to that Promise brings the Kingdom of Heaven onto earth, breaks into the here and now with healing, forgiveness and new life. Fueled by that new life, we want to commit acts of kindness, mercy, compassion and start building lives that positively impact others. And thanks to Jesus, not only can we do that, but we also get to be the medium conveying Christ to others. But seriously, when really faced directly with God's forgiveness of our sins and the Kingdom of Heaven, can we do anything else? I do not deny that there are two natures at work in the Christian, but it's not about choosing the angel on your shoulder vs the devil. That angel is put to death repeatedly by us at the instigation of the devil (we still do it!), and must rise daily (hourly?) in order to lead us in righteousness.

Or maybe another way to convey what I'm trying to say is that faith is trust. Can you trust on command? Could you trust that a person who had cheated on you wouldn't cheat on you again? Could you actually trust an addict not to spend the money you give him on drugs? Note that I'm not saying, 'can you give them the money' or 'stay married', but 'can you trust'? Nor am I asking 'can you try to trust?', but 'can you trust?' If you're "trying" to trust, it implies that you don't currently trust (because if you did, no effort would be needed).

Peter,

What was the first thing Adam and Eve did after becoming knowledgeable? They covered their nakedness and felt shame. This is arguably a move towards righteousness, because God agreed with them and made them clothes. Their very first choice between good and evil was good. They could now move toward or away from God on their own accord. I agree that at first we mainly move in a general tack away from our Lord, but we do have moments of moving towards Him by choise. And with time and maturity in Christ, we decrease our angle of departure with the Bible as our rudder, and the Holy Spirit's wind in our sails. We can choose to follow God. We make desisions every day to enter into sin, or to fight off temptation. We win some; we lose some.

And I stand corrected about seeking God the wrong way getting us into worst trouble. I guess I was thinking of the "saved" seeking Gods will; I was not considering the pantheists…etc

Peter: I am old enough to vividly remember the fate of Korean Air Lines Flight 007. It was shot down in 1983 by the Soviets for wandering into Soviet air space. Before the plane had taken off, someone made a mistake when setting the flight path -- it was only off by just a little bit -- but enough to keep the plane from reaching its destination. Since then, I have seen this as a metaphor for theology and the spiritual life.

You wrote: "On the Day of Judgment, what we've done will be as dirty rags regardless of how we've lived our life. It's all about God's Son." You said "regardless." That is simply not true. I challenge you to open the New Testament at random, and you will find an exhortation to perform good works because we will be judged by them. I just used, in another comment, Jesus' example of the sheep and the goats.

As best as I can tell from my understanding of your theological position (I have studied Theology at the Graduate Level), you are moving beyond Lutheranism into Calvinism. Luther held many assumptions from his Catholicism. He believed in discipleship, in following the Way -- not in some sort of magical, instant purification by Faith. I use the word "Purification." My name happens to be "Katherine" -- I was given the name, in part, by my religious father, for Katharina von Bora. The name means "pure."

Let me ask you: Do you believe Baptism erases Original Sin? Jesus said, speaking about John the Baptist, that he was the greatest prophet, but even the littlest one born into the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he.

I could write much more, but I will leave it here.

P.S. Unbelievable! While I was typing this, David posted a comment with the same metaphor -- only his is a ship with sails!

Peter: You and I are speaking the same language when it comes to salvation.

It's not about whether we choose or not. It's about whether Christ has chosen us and the Promise we're given is that He has, despite all of the times we've chosen against God and against Christ. Our response to Jesus was crucifixion. Even the first disciples responded by betrayal and falling away from him, even though they knew Jesus to be the Messiah and knew that He was to suffer and die. Focusing on our free will is to miss the point-- our "free will" is not free enough to save us or even to keep us saved.

I agree. But what happens after we are exposed to the saving grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ? What then becomes of our ability to choose between good and evil? And here is where I think your posting falls very short as you address what Luther says. For we are not a totally good tree, and we are not a totally bad tree. At the same time saint and sinner.

I don't know if you saw my quotes from Luther's "Freedom of a Christian", but for the sake of argument, here they are again (emphasis mine):

Since then this faith can reign only in the inward man, as it is said: "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness" (Rom. x. 10); and since it alone justifies, it is evident that by no outward work or labour can the inward man be at all justified, made free, and saved; and that no works whatever have any relation to him. And so, on the other hand, it is solely by impiety and incredulity of heart that he becomes guilty, and a slave of sin, deserving condemnation; not by any outward sin or work. Therefore the first care of every Christian ought to be, to lay aside all reliance on works, and strengthen his faith alone more and more, and by it grow in [108] the knowledge, not of works, but of Christ Jesus, who has suffered and risen again for him; as Peter teaches, when he makes no other work to be a Christian one.

Luther is speaking about our striving to learn more and grow in faith. We apparently have the choice to do so or not.

Although, as I have said, inwardly, and according to the spirit, a man is amply enough justified by faith, having all that lie requires to have, except that this very faith and abundance ought to increase from day to day, even till the future life; still he remains in this mortal life upon earth, in which it is necessary that he should rule his own body, and have intercourse with men. Here then works begin; here he must not take his ease; here he must give heed to exercise his body by fastings, watchings, labour, and other moderate discipline, so that it may be subdued to the spirit, and obey and conform itself to the inner man and faith, and not rebel against them nor hinder them, as is its nature to do if it is not kept under.

Again, one sees the struggle to conform the outer life to the life of the soul. One has choice in this matter as he/she seeks to be governed not by the desires of the flesh but by the desires of the spirit.

And to clench it, Luther's statement immediately following:

In doing this he offends that contrary will in his own flesh, which is striving to serve the world, and to seek its own gratification.

Two natures. Two wills striving. Man chooses between the two and offends the contrary one.

Case closed.

TheHawg,

I'm with you on the two natures thing, too. I think where we disagree is on whether we choose between the natures or not. Luther doesn't speak of 'choosing' to offend that contrary will, but that it is a consequence of living in Christ. We live in the tension between the Old Adam/Eve and the new creation made in Christ, but that tension is not so much a choice. Both natures desire to subdue and destroy the other, but that is a consequence of what they are. They're no more free to "choose" to subdue the other nature than a red object is to "choose" to cease being red.

Maybe it's a discussion about the Third Use of the Law. I hold that the Third Use is the First and Second Uses all over again in the life of the believer-- Third Use is that we're not entirely 'in Christ' until God has truly put the Old Adam/Eve to death.

davidt,

Clothing Adam and Eve was not a sign of God's approval. God's response to clothing was "who told you that you were naked?" Right after clothing them, God says both "He must not eat of the tree of life" and "Get out of my garden!" None of that indicates God's pleasure. If anything, the clothing is best understood as the Law. Its purpose is to curb sin, even to an extent of making concessions to sin to avoid greater sin, but it cannot overcome sin. The clothes don't fix the problem of Adam and Eve knowing that they are naked.

You talk about 'winning some and losing some choices'. That's still losing too many. We can't choose to win all of them, which is what we'd need to do for our works to hold any merit. That's why free will isn't relevant. I don't know that "the saved" seeking God's will necessarily goes any better than a devout Muslim or Jew. If we trust our own ability to choose, even a tiny little bit, we're putting our trust in a false god instead of in Christ. Plenty of people who think they are saved push the false gospel of Prosperity, and more teach works-righteousness. The only way to "seek God's will" is to entirely trust the One that God has sent has reconciled us to God despite our sins.

kkahler,

This is also why we are absolutely not judged by good works-- if you think that's a Lutheran position, reread article IV of the Augsburg Confession and Apology. I am not saying that there is no such thing as discipleship; there is discipleship. But discipleship is not striving to fulfill the Law as best we can, or using Christ as an aid in fulfilling the Law. Nor is it generally doing good works. Discipleship is trusting God's Promise in Christ and living and proclaiming that Promise. Or, put another way, it's not a series of 'you gotta's' but rather a series of 'you get to's'. Discipleship is a gift, even as it leads to the mortification of our flesh.

Nor have I argued for purification. The old must be put to death and there is new created. Or as Jesus put it, "new wine doesn't go into old wineskins". This is the second half of the Gospel being "the Good News". Both Good and New. Not a patch-job on the old.

As to 3rd Use, every funeral marks God truly putting the Old Adam/Eve to death. The Promise we have is that death is not our end because Christ lives in us.

kkahler,

Church is primarily sacramental, not sacrificial. What I mean by those two terms is that church is about what God does to us (sacramental), not what we give up (like our time) for God (sacrificial). There is an element of 'loving response' to church, but what's more important is Word and Sacrament. That's the primary purpose of going to church every Sunday (or Tuesday or Saturday or whenever)-- to be nourished with God's Gospel Promise. If it's Christ alone and only, we really need Christ.

If you can proclaim or receive the Gospel at the beach or in the park, you should be there.

Peter,

God knew what nakedness meant before Adam and Eve, and it is referenced all through the Bible, that nakedness is associated with shame and unrighteousness. Our first family inherently knew this fact the second they ate the fruit. And they moved immediately to rectify their condition by covering themselves. God, who knows the end from the beginning, did not need to ask "who"; He knew. What God did is to acknowledge to them that their appearance is "now" indeed sinful,(because they know) and helped them to rectify their condition in a more permanent way by making them clothes. Then He promptly condemned them for falling to temptation. The snake got off free as a bird to reap future calamity with Job (whose story draws many parallels with the first families). There were no more bad deeds attributed the first couple east of Eden. So apparently they didn't turn into Bonny and Clyde by just possessing the knowledge. So as far as we know, the only sin they committed was to bring the knowledge of good and evil into the world of men. But we do know the rest of the story (like God knew immediately) what this knowledge led to.

Their very first choice between good and evil was good

davidt,

Actually, as you explain it, the choice to cover themselves is sinful. Covering themselves did not fix their condition of being unrighteous. In fact, it was just a matter of trying to hide it. Trying to cover up your crimes is a crime in and of itself. Also, the next move they made was consistent with not choosing righteousness, but plunging deeper into sin: hiding from God. Also sinful. Then, when God confronts them, they try to pass blame. 'She gave it to me', 'the serpent told me to do it'. More sinning. Notice the complete lack of repentance in this story. First they cover themselves. Then they hide. Then they pass the blame. None of that is repentance. If they had really thought they were righteous (or even mostly on the right path), they would not have hidden from God. They would have stood their ground, saying 'I may have sinned by eating the fruit, but at least I covered myself up'. Were they repentent, they would have said 'Lord, have mercy'.

I think the clothing must be read entirely as a gift from God to Adam and Eve, not as a reward or affirmation that trying to hide their sin was good, and/or possibly because the land they were about to go to required clothing for protection from the elements.

There actually is yet more sin from the first couple: Cain and Abel. They raised a murderer. They missed all of the warning signs of trouble between Cain and Abel. Also, Adam very well may have lived into his grandchildren's time (or if you believe Gen 5:5, 930 years, which meant he was around until after Lamech (Noah's father, Adam's greatx5-grandchild) was born). What did Adam, as the patriarch, do to curb sin during his years? The only thing outside of sin multiplying on the earth is Enoch's faithfulness, for which Adam and Eve get no credit.

Peter,

I'll take these in the order you gave them in.

The idea that covering oneself in order to stop sinning; is in itself sinful, is beyond absurd. And I never said it fixed them, I said they turned from their sinful condition and covered themselves so they wouldn't be naked no more. If I walk around in public naked, that's a sin; but if I go in and put some clothes on, then I stop sinning. The sin does go away, or get fixed, but it stops getting worst. And all the rationalizing that followed, while it was sinful, were still the result of the initial infraction, and shouldn't be construed as headlong dash into evil. There is no Old Testament word for repentance, so how would they know it. I never said they thought they were righteous; where are you getting all this stuff. I never said the clothes were a reward, or trying to hide there sin; God helped them cover themselves to stop sinning, and not be ashamed no more. Raising a murderer in not a sin; we are all responsible for our own sin. Missing the all of the signs of trouble between Cain and Able; huh, that's a sin? Peter, all I said was there was no record of further sin indicating that Adam and Eve were chronic evil doers. That's a 800 year record of silence. Why should Adam be credited for enoch, that don't even make sense?

I think I took this one sentence by sentence Peter; you are usually much more accurate than this.

As soon as they had the knowledge of good and evil, they realized that their nakedness was evil, and they stop being naked.

David, Peter and TheHawg:

From experience, I have found that once we get into the Bible, we begin an endless, discordant journey -- unless we have an authority to interpret The Book for us -- an authority we all hold in common. Yesterday's reading about "conflict resolution" articulates this perfectly. Jesus gave Peter the Keys and the power to bind and loose (Matthew 16). Then, in Matthew 18, Jesus tells us (the church) how to use this power, with love (Rom 13:8), to resolve conflicts within the Church.

Peter: Earlier in this thread, you offered us a source: Fordham University. [Ok, I looked through On Christian Freedom.] There are so many sources on the internet where you could have found the Luther writing, I wonder why you chose Fordham, a Jesuit university with a theology department that is very Liberal and feminist. Interesting. (Also, even though TheHawg disagrees, we all know this discussion goes back to Luther's views on marriage.)

I just re-read the Bible account of Adam and Eve, and all their problems. I noticed that the Lord God made them garments of skins. That means God must have killed some animals! More trouble -- for vegetarians and vegans! Who can interpret the Scripture for us and still keep the Church united?

Be careful kkahler,

Would you let Joseph Smith interpret your Bible for you? Many did, and still do, to their probable chagrin. The Mormons also claim the "keys to the kingdom".

Besides:

The Holy Ghost, by the mouth of St Paul, says to us, "Prove all things. Hold fast that which is good."

The right, duty, and necessity of private judgment. "Prove all things."
When I say the right of private judgment, I mean that every individual Christian has a right to judge for himself by the Word of God, whether that which is put before him as religious truth, is God's truth, or is not.

When I say the duty of private judgment, I mean that God requires every Christian man to use the right of which I have just spoken;—to compare man's words and man's writings with God's revelation, and to make sure that he is not deluded and taken in by false teaching.

And when I say the necessity of private judgment, I mean this,—that it is absolutely needful for every Christian who loves his soul and would not be deceived, to exercise that right, and discharge that duty to which I have referred; seeing that experience shows that the neglect of private judgment has always been the cause of immense evils in the Church of Christ. > J.C. Ryle 1816-1900

Kathy: You bring up a very interesting point about authority. What happens when any and every authority is imperfect and sinful? What happens when any and every authority tends to interpret Scripture as it sees fit including picking and choosing parts of Scripture they like and leaving out parts they don't like?

davidt and kkahler,

If nudity were sinful in and of itself, Adam and Eve were sinners in paradise. Leaving that aside, the issue with covering up is the same issue with cover-ups today. Hiding the accounting lies was a sin for Enron, hiding an affair is a sin, hiding the fact that your nation is torturing prisoners abroad is a sin. That it's embarrassing is no less reason to hide it. Adam and Eve were trying to cover themselves up. They'd been naked all that time with no problems, and only now they sin by being naked? It's also in the act of covering up that God knows their sin. Right after asking why Adam was hiding, first question put to them: 'who told you that you were naked?' That's an accusatory question, just like the next one 'did you eat from the tree?'.

The problem, though, is that covering or failing to cover oneself is irrelevant because it cannot manage to bring about righteousness. This is the problem with all works of the Law (note in this paragraph I've switched from arguing that their act of covering themselves was sinful to conceding it for the sake of the discussion about righteousness). The Law at best can only ever curb sin, so focusing on ethics is a constantly losing proposition. And for Christians, it misses the Gospel. We have a tool to deal with sin, or as kkahler calls it, we have the power of the Keys. This is not just some tool for church discipline, but the very power to forgive sins, to remove them and heal what they have caused. No curbing is needed here because the sin has been cured. Every absolution, whether given by a pastor or any other Christian, is using the power of the Keys.

On the side note of repentence in the OT, the concept is certainly there. See Jonah 3:8 as one particular example, though it's certainly used in other prophets as well.

As to interpretation, I agree with davidt in that it must be "by the Word of God", but with the important reminder that "Word of God" is the Gospel Promise. Law and Gospel must be distinguished.

As to choice of sources, I picked the first one Google gave me that had what I wanted. That's also why most of my Bible-quoting is NIV-- that's typically the top version Google gives back. If I ever do cite the original Greek, it'll likely come from Nestle-Aland (I think I've got the 27th edition) and my Augsburg Confession/Apology citations come from the Book of Concord online because I have it bookmarked.