To all, but particularly ELCA and ELCIC members; What are your thoughts?

[DailyBlessings]

It can't be ceremonial at all because of the verses in the New Testament regarding...look up Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

Do you have any reason to believe that ceremonial law is not present in the New Testament? I say quite the contrary, considering the episode in Acts that occasioned Paul's warnings against sexual immorality. Law is Law, and I'm absolutely certain that Luther at least would reject the notion that one has to follow some laws but not others. If you place yourself under one part of the law, you're in it for the whole ride.

 

[LilLamb219]

Do you have any reason to believe that ceremonial law is not present in the New Testament? I say quite the contrary, considering the episode in Acts that occasioned Paul's warnings against sexual immorality. Law is Law, and I'm absolutely certain that Luther at least would reject the notion that one has to follow some laws but not others. If you place yourself under one part of the law, you're in it for the whole ride.

Who said that it is for salvation???

If the Lord our God says something is an abomination (which he does in this case), why would someone want to purposely continue in that activity knowing very well the pain Jesus had to endure at the cross for it? Is that love for God to do that? Is it gratitude?

 

[DaRev]

Ceremonial vs Moral law? What kind of extra-scriptural heresy is that? The Bible doesn't make any distinction between the two.

Perhaps you should do a little research on Biblical law and the difference between ceremonial, moral, and civil laws before making such ridiculous accusations.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Perhaps you should do a little research on Biblical law and the difference between ceremonial, moral, and civil laws before making such ridiculous accusations.

The distinction that you make between ceremonial, moral and civil laws is a human structure placed upon the Scriptures. It is no more a part of the Bible than are the divisions of chapters and verses.

 

[DaRev]

Do you have any reason to believe that ceremonial law is not present in the New Testament? I say quite the contrary, considering the episode in Acts that occasioned Paul's warnings against sexual immorality. Law is Law, and I'm absolutely certain that Luther at least would reject the notion that one has to follow some laws but not others. If you place yourself under one part of the law, you're in it for the whole ride.

Luther most definitely distinguished between the ceremonial law, which he said pertained only to the Jews, and the moral law, which is binding on all.
Again, I suggest you do a little research before making such statements.

 

[DaRev]

The distinction that you make between ceremonial, moral and civil laws is a human structure placed upon the Scriptures. It is no more a part of the Bible than are the divisions of chapters and verses.

Tell Luther that.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Tell Luther that.

It gets said often enough around here: Luther wasn't always right.

At any rate, Luther was a human being and my point is that the distinction between civil, moral and ceremonial laws are a human construct placed upon the text and not a part of the text itself.

 

[DaRev]

It gets said often enough around here: Luther wasn't always right.

At any rate, Luther was a human being and my point is that the distinction between civil, moral and ceremonial laws are a human construct placed upon the text and not a part of the text itself.

Kinda like the word "Trinity" is a human construct but not part of the text. Perhaps we've had that wrong all this time too?

The distinctions are made to distinguish between what the different laws were for and to whom they applied.

 

[LilLamb219]

Even our own Lutheran Confessions make note of the ceremonial laws.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

WELS Q&A has a great answer about law in the bible...

Click HERE.

The simplest form I believe would be "Christians are bound only to that in the Mosaic Law which expresses God’s moral law."

 

[Willy]

Kinda like the word "Trinity" is a human construct but not part of the text. Perhaps we've had that wrong all this time too?

The distinctions are made to distinguish between what the different laws were for and to whom they applied.

Trinity is a construct that comes later than the Biblical texts. That doesn't make it a bad construct. That doctrine bears witness to the church's experience with God. But Trinity is not a Biblical doctrine, although I would say that it is an appropriate confession based on Biblical insight and wisdom.

 

[Radiata]

Trinity is a construct that comes later than the Biblical texts. That doesn't make it a bad construct. That doctrine bears witness to the church's experience with God. But Trinity is not a Biblical doctrine, although I would say that it is an appropriate confession based on Biblical insight and wisdom.

And you declare that ceremonial and moral laws is not an appropriate distinction based on biblical insight and wisdom?

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Kinda like the word "Trinity" is a human construct but not part of the text. Perhaps we've had that wrong all this time too?

The distinctions are made to distinguish between what the different laws were for and to whom they applied.

Ignoring the unnecessary sarcastic smiley...

I would say that it is similar but not the same.

The authors of the New Testament were not Trinitarians in the same sense that Athanasius was. Rather they were monotheists who recognized the one God in the three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They probably would have recognized their own understanding of God's nature in the later creedal formulations.

The authors of the New Testament used the Trinitarian name. But, the Bible nowhere makes the distinction between moral, civil and ceremonial laws.

The Levitical Law was understood in its original context as applying to the people of Israel and distinguishing them from the nations. The Law governed all of their life. They did not make distinctions between civil, moral and ceremonial laws. They did not compartmentalize their lives in that way. The Law was the Law of God for the people of God.

So, that understanding is imposed on the text in a way that the doctrine of the Trinity is not. Also, the doctrine of the Trinity has the universal support of the Church catholic. I don't think the three-fold distinction of the Law has quite the same support.

In the book of Acts, when the Jerusalem church rules that circumcision is not to be required of Gentiles, they do not completely lift the kosher dietary laws. Gentile Christians are to refrain from eating meat offered to idols and from food that is strangled. If you divide the Law into three categories, are not the kosher dietary regulations ceremonial? I suppose that you could argue that strangling animals is immoral in some way, but that would be reading a lot into the text.

The other requirement placed upon Christians in Acts is that they refrain from sexual immorality. The question for me becomes "Are homosexual acts immoral in and of themselves? Or, are homosexual acts within a covenanted, committed, faithful and mutually exclusive relationship permissable, just as heterosexual acts are within the covenant of marriage?"

 

[PreachersWife2004]

The other requirement placed upon Christians in Acts is that they refrain from sexual immorality. The question for me becomes "Are homosexual acts immoral in and of themselves? Or, are homosexual acts within a covenanted, committed, faithful and mutually exclusive relationship permissable, just as heterosexual acts are within the covenant of marriage?"

Well, let's see. Since marriage is between a man and a woman, and sex is something that is supposed to take place within the marriage bed, then I'd say that yes, homosexual acts are immoral.

 

[LilLamb219]

Well, let's see. Since marriage is between a man and a woman, and sex is something that is supposed to take place within the marriage bed, then I'd say that yes, homosexual acts are immoral.

DING DING DING Give the lady a prize!

 

[BreadAlone]

Ah..this is totally deja vu. The moral/civil/ceremonial discussions, comparing it to the Trinity, the arguments about marriage..the works. Completely a DoH clone thread. It's just so nice having mostly everyone dabating on your side this time around.

In the book of Acts, when the Jerusalem church rules that circumcision is not to be required of Gentiles, they do not completely lift the kosher dietary laws. Gentile Christians are to refrain from eating meat offered to idols and from food that is strangled. If you divide the Law into three categories, are not the kosher dietary regulations ceremonial? I suppose that you could argue that strangling animals is immoral in some way, but that would be reading a lot into the text.

I Corinthians 8:7-8: "But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do."

It's not like this distinction was pulled out of the blue. If you read the NT and OT contextually, letting Scripture interpret Scripture, it becomes quite evident..

 

[BigNorsk]

Do you have any reason to believe that ceremonial law is not present in the New Testament? I say quite the contrary, considering the episode in Acts that occasioned Paul's warnings against sexual immorality. Law is Law, and I'm absolutely certain that Luther at least would reject the notion that one has to follow some laws but not others. If you place yourself under one part of the law, you're in it for the whole ride.

This quote from Luther should clarify his position.

Moses’s laws bound and obliged only the Jews in that place which God made choice of. Now they are free. If we should keep and observe the laws and rites of Moses, we must also be circumcised, and keep the Mosaical ceremonies; for there is no difference; he that hold one to be necessary, must hold the rest so too. Therefore let us leave Moses to his laws, excepting only the Moralia , which God has planted in Nature, as the Ten Commandments, which concern God’s true worshipping and service, and a civil life. The particular and only office of the law is, as St. Paul teaches, that transgressions thereby should be acknowledged; for it was added, because of transgressions, till the seed should come, to whom the promise was made. These are the express and plain words of St. Paul; therefore we trouble not ourselves not with what the papists allege to the contrary, and spin out of human reason, extolling the maintainers and seeming observances of Moses’s law. God gives to the emperor the sword, the emperor delivers it to the judge, and causes thieves, murderers, etc., to be punished and executed.

Sorry for the blue colors and lines they carry through in the copying.

It's from Luther's "Of the Law and Gospel"

Marv

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Ah..this is totally deja vu. The moral/civil/ceremonial discussions, comparing it to the Trinity, the arguments about marriage..the works. Completely a DoH clone thread. It's just so nice having mostly everyone dabating on your side this time around.



I Corinthians 8:7-8: "But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do."

It's not like this distinction was pulled out of the blue. If you read the NT and OT contextually, letting Scripture interpret Scripture, it becomes quite evident..

Read my point again. I'm raising the question of eating the meat of strangled animals. How is this a moral law rather than ceremonial or civil? Kosher dietary law required meat to be bled out. The Jerusalem church imposed that restriction on Gentile Christians. It is not immoral to eat strangled meat, it is a matter of ritual purity.

 

[LutheranMafia]

...look up Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

Romans 1:26-27 is about a bi-sexual society like the Greeks and Romans, it is not about a predominantly homosexual society. 1 Corinthians 6 does refer to homosexuals, but compares them to drinkers and partiers, not exactly the worst sins in the world.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Well, let's see. Since marriage is between a man and a woman, and sex is something that is supposed to take place within the marriage bed, then I'd say that yes, homosexual acts are immoral.

Before you collect your cigar from LilLamb, let's look to the fact that the Bible nowhere defines marriage as "one man/one woman." The Patriarchs, Judges, and even Kings David and Solomon engaged in polygamy and concubinage without a word of moral condemnation. The account of Adam and Eve in Genesis describes what has always been a norm, but it does not prescribe that norm.

To move this discussion ahead a little...at the present time, the ELCA's policy is that its pastors will be celibate in singleness and faithful in marriage. Also, the ELCA does not recognize same-sex unions. So, gay clergy are to remain celibate. There have been some extraordinary ordinations of individuals living in committed same-sex relationships. (There have also been extraordinary ordinations of individuals who object to the Call to Common Mission agreement with the Episcopal Church). I don't approve of extraordinary ordinations because they violate the rule of good order.

In what I am about to say, I represent only myself. I am not in anyway representing the ELCA.

It is well-established that a certain, small percentage of human beings have an innate homosexual orientation. This is true in every culture and society. The cause or causes for same-sex attraction are not completely understood, but it seems clear that homosexuality is not a choice.

To say that all homosexual behavior is, in and of itself, immoral makes three options available to the homosexual minority. 1. try to live as a heterosexual person, 2. live in celibacy, 3. live in "unrepentant sin."

The first is to live a lie, which is not a healthy option.

The second, celibacy, is a heavy burden to place on homosexual individuals. Even the Apostle Paul, who wished that everyone could be celibate, recognized that this was not feasible for every person.

The third is to brand homosexuals with a label that they are bound to reject. It is asking them to repent of their very nature. It would be like asking you to repent of your heterosexuality.

In the light of today's best understanding of homosexuality (an understanding that was not available to the authors of Scripture) I think a better construction to place on the argument is, "How can homosexual persons ethically express their sexuality?" And the answer I come to is, "Just like heterosexual persons: by living in faithful, committed, covenanted, non-coercive relationships."

So, I am in favor of same-sex marriage as an ethical outlet for homosexuality. And, this being the case, I am also in favor of the ordination of homosexuals according to the same standard applied to heterosexuals: celibacy outside of marriage and fidelity within marriage.