Crazy Theological Thoughts

I have never be a fan of fancy terms. People create a new term to convey a point they believe. People creatively come up with fancy words or use old terms to convey some great mystery. Some of the fancy terms become used more than others. Simil ustus epicator became a term to reference the idea of humanities duality as simultaniously sinner and saint. This term is used to reference all humans while its origin is the latin phrase. The idea it conveys goes beyond the original concept which was related to Saints. These are people who are cleansed in the Blood of Christ. The only people this phrase can ever be applied to is Christians. These fancy terms get pushed in different directions because people do not have to explain the whole truth when they use it. Two Kingdoms is another term which gets thrown around. I understand this to mean the two Kingdoms which war against each other. Kingdom theology which means the reign of Christ is generally connected with the two hands of God...

Over and Over again the Writers of the New Testament call themselves slaves to God. Most english translations translate the word slave as servant. This is not an improper translation because a slave in the Ancient world was not like a slave in the Americas. Slaves were not generally a racial distinction nor often forced to hard labor, which is not to say some were forced to do hard labor. But the common slave would like like another person in the midst of a market. He would have a master who owned him. He would no longer be able to claim his own will or desires but he would be forced to follow the will of his master. Treatment of slaves who did not follow their masters rules was death. It was not torture or torment a much more simple punishment. Therefore, slaves knew their place in society. They would follow their masters rules. Thus, the writers of the New Testament confess to be SLAVES to their MASTER (the LORD). When they write it is not therefore even by their own author...

In the most recent Concordia Journal Dr. Arand talks about a Creation Sunday. "Where does creation find expression within the worship life of the church and its liturgy? Consider the church year. Where does creation receive attention? Currently, the first half of our church year rightly focuses on the life of Jesus. The Second half of the church year focuses on the life of the church. These correlate with the second and third articles of the creed. But where does the first article of the creed (God's ongoing activity in creation) find a place within the Church year? After all, without it we cannot properly grasp Scripture's account of redemption in Christ. We wouldn't have to call it "Earth Sunday." We could call it "Creation Sunday" or have a "Season of Creation." For the matter, how do our worship practices and rituals express our connection to creation as well as our care of creation?" This latest issue of the Concordia Journal is ...

Arland Hultgren talks about many different problems in the Lectionary. One point is more interesting to me to talk about the unity of Scripture. "The first area of concern has to do with the unity and diversity of the Bible. In the present system of theological education, in which there is usually a rather clearly defined division of labor between the Old Testament and New Testament studies and in which the atomizing effects of the historical-critical approach accent the diverse and pluralistic, there is sufficient cause to wonder whether the seminary graduate is equipped to handle the question of the unity of the Bible in a critical and responsible way." Most universities and Seminaries distinguish greatly between New Testament and Old Testament. Now this could be because they need to view differently. But the most prominent division is the languages they are written in (Hebrew and Greek). These also have a cultural difference, but then so does Genesis. People coming o...

I find this next quote to help a little more in explaining a controlling text. This quote will also point to our ability to let other lessons shine. Arland Hultgren writes, "The Gospel for the Day is still the controlling lesson for each Sunday, even though it need not be the text for preaching. The Old Testament is read generally in light of its fulfillment in Jesus Christ, so that salvation history is portrayed, but it is set forth in a punctiliar way—with the Gospel letting parts of the Old Testament shine through selectively, rather than in a semi-continuous fashion in analogy to the semi-continuous reading of the Gospels and Epistles." Allowing people to hear the History of the Old Testament. Allowing the Average person on Sunday morning to hear the Epistle read through. These new controlling texts would allow for people to dive into their Bibles a little further. One of the problems people or pastors tell me is that others do not know Bible History. When was Lot b...

This paragraph is the one that I latched onto. Arland Hultgren writes, "The lectionary proposed by the Liturgical Commission of the Church of England sets forth the history of salvation in each of two years in conjunction with a radical revision of the church year. The church year in its revised form begins nine Sundays before Christmas, and there is a controlling lesson—not necessarily or even usually the Gospel—for each Sunday throughout the year. During the nine Sundays before Christmas the controlling Lessons are the Old Testament texts, which set forth in sequence the Creation, Fall, Noah, Abraham, and Moses, followed by readings from the prophets up to Christmas. Then from Christmas to Pentecost the Gospel for the Day is the controlling lesson. And during the Sundays after Pentecost the controlling lessons are from Acts and the Epistles." He makes a point of the controlling lesson. The change of the controlling lesson from the Gospel lesson is an important change....

The article that got all this started was written by Arland J Hultgren entitled, "Hermeneutical Tendencies in the Three-Year Lectionary." Arland Hultgren from Luther Theological Seminary wrote an Article that explains some tendencies or observations. The First observation is related to the "synoptic fundamentalism." He writes, "Most of us would probably not have it otherwise with the lectionary. But we should remind ourselves that the primary use of the synoptic Gospels which the Lectionary provides does not necessarily, from a Lutheran perspective, offer more opportunities for the gospel to be heard. Martin Luther, it will be remembered, discerned that the gospel was proclaimed preeminently in the Gospel of John and said that the Fourth Gospel is, 'the one, fine, true and chief gospel.'" Luther does look to the Gospel of John as the one who reveals the wondrous connection between Old and New Testament. This reflects on the throwing of John t...

I would encourage all to read "The Path of Understanding – The Development of Lectionaries and their use in the Lutheran Church" I found it on-line. Hopefully this web-cite is correct. www.blc.edu/comm/gargy/gargy1/AlexRing.gpc.html He has many other comments which I have not talked about that are very good. He also gives further examples in his Appendices. Thank you

Alexander Ring makes a great reflection on the difficulties with the RCL. He writes, "Its preparation was heavily influenced by higher criticism and liberal theology. Where the ILCW tended to omit or edit, the RCL flat out does it. No sections that may seem anti-Semitic are used, such as St John 11:45-53 or the stoning of Stephen. The sections that speak against homosexuality are conspicuously omitted, as well as verses that warn of false prophets. So seriously flawed is the RCL from both a hermeneutical and liturgical standpoint that it would be difficult to sanction its use in the Lutheran congregation." The first thing to mention is the anti-Semitic factor. I already knew it had higher criticism and liberal theology for support. The problem with the RCL is simply it is flawed. The RCL does not warn us of coming disaster. It does not speak plainly about what the Bible itself preaches. I find his argument about liberal Theology to be questioned. To have a Lectionar...

Alexander Ring gives us a list of questions the committees asked concerning their decision of which texts belong in the Lectionary. These questions only help to prove how theology helps to influence these Lectionaries. In the ILCW in 1971: 1. "Can this passage be expounded meaningfully today, can one preach relevantly on it? 2. Do the readings as a whole reflect the whole counsel of God? 3. Is the reading exegetically defensible? Are there textual problems in the Hebrew or Greek which render the meaning of a passage uncertain? 4. Is the reading ecumenical? How widely is it used to express past usage and current practice?" There are some rather strange problems with these questions. One would truly ask which texts of scripture must be denied. What text can not be made relevant for the world today? Each text whether it be from the Old Testament Law or Paul talking about problems in Corinth are useful today. They all have application today. The second question brings the...

In his Article "the Path of Understanding – The Development of Lectionaries and their use in the Lutheran Church" Alexander Ring tells us, "Devotional books such as that by Bishop Laache and Luther's Family Devotions followed the Historic lectionary, with the intent that worship in the home would be an echo of what had been heard in church that Sunday, and so that those kept from public worship would have yet one more connection to the Holy Christian Church." Many Devotional books have been written upon the Historic Lectionary. He also reminds us it has been in use for over 600 years. One would remind him that he previously dated it back to 471. The Lectionary has changed and advanced over the Years. In the Lutheran Hymnal we find a lectionary that has no OT lessons. The Lutheran Service Book then reads the Historic Lectionary with OT Lessons. One can see how something can change and be improved. He says over the last 600 years the bugs have been worked ou...

Alexander Ring also makes mention of the continued use of the Lectionary at the time of the Reformation. "Indeed, in an end we see that even Luther took himself with a grain of salt, since despite his comments Luther himself prescribed the use of the Historic Lectionary in both the Formula Missae and Deutsche Messe, and all Lutheran altar books continued in their use of it. Even the Augsburg Confession and the Apology testify to its official use in Lutheran congregations, when in speaking about tradition and the Church the Lutherans stated: 'Many traditions are kept on our part, for they lead to good order in the Church, such as the Order of Lessons in the Mass[i.e., the lectionary] and the chief festivals.' 'We keep traditional liturgical forms, such as the order of the lessons, prayers, vestments, etc.' The next 400 years of Lutheran liturgical life was governed by the Historic Lectionary." The Lutheran Church does maintain these things to be good right ...

Alexander Ring dates the Historic Lectionary back to Jerome. "What we know today as the Historic Lectionary comes to us from the Comes Hieronymi (Jerome). The date and authorship of this document is disputed, however at the very latest it was written by someone in 471. Having the name of Jerome attached to it made this document influential on its own, but when it was included in the Leonine Sacramentary it became a standard text for the Western Church. Even then, it provided assigned readings only for Advent, Christmas, Lent and Easter. The rest of the year was still covered by optional propers included in the comes, or by the whim of the local bishop or pastor." Just a side note: Alexander Ring seems to draw a connection between the propers of the Lectionary to the Lectionary itself. It makes me leery to think that the Lectionary is the Liturgy. He makes note of the time frame and the connection to Jerome which can cause problems historically. It covers the major part...

I found another interesting article written by Alexander Ring titled "The Path of Understanding: The Development of Lectionaries and their use in the Lutheran Church." He writes, "Christians congregations of the first century took their cues for the divine service from the worship practices of the synagogue, which used a lectionary to determine the readings for the service. … While there was some variation in practice, usually there were two Scripture readings in each service. The first was from the Torah, divided into 150 parts to be read lectio continua in a three year cycle, then a second lesson from the Prophets." Ring uses the example from Luke 4:16-21, where this is not a Christian Congregation example. He will further use the same citation from Justin Martyr which I previously talked about. What was going on in the early church is very difficult to understand. I like the point that in Jewish Synagogues they would take three years to go through 5 books ...

Just Martyr writes, "And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a port...

Sundberg gives a list of Three specific Limitations of the Lectionary in his Article. "3. The lectionary produces too many sermons on the Gospel texts. It is an obvious fact that the lectionary, and worship practice generally, give the gospel lesson pride of place as the culmination of the readings for the day. It is for the gospel alone that we stand; we begin and end the hearing of it with music of praise. This is an honored practice of the Christian tradition. But it is a practice that has led, in my opinion, to a surfeit of sermons grounded in the gospel texts." On would think if he did not add "texts" to that last phrase it would be a great thing. But the RCL has based itself on the Gospel lesson for every Sunday. The Liturgy of the Lutheran Church and most other Churches rightly so sing praises and alleluias to hear the words of our Lord in red lettering. But the truth is that all God's word is truly important, while the Gospel lessons should be he...

Sundberg gives a list of Three specific Limitations of the Lectionary in his Article. "2. The use of three disparate texts causes insurmountable hermeneutical difficulties for the preacher and the congregation. The temptation to relate the texts to each other, fostered by the lectionary's effort to make the Old Testament and gospel readings analogous, is strong for the preacher and nearly overwhelming for the congregation. This discourages serious exegesis." I find it interesting to hear the phrase, "serious exegesis." The Lectionary does lead people to make connections that may not be there. But one must remember the entire Scripture is connected in Christ. The entire scripture is one. All these passages do have a connection together. Thus, even those with the vaguest connection can be draw together. I would finally encourage that there is a difficulty here with different texts, but at the same time we need to hear a greater amount of scripture. We nee...

Sundberg gives a list of Three specific Limitations of the Lectionary in his Article. "1. The lectionary does not responsibly represent the Old Testament. This is not surprising. In the long tradition of Christian lectionaries, the Old Testament has rarely found a secure place. … A further problem is caused by the choice of Old Testament readings. Richard Nelson points out that '30% of all readings are from Isaiah and two-thirds of these are from chapters 40-66.' This is a shocking statistic. It is obvious that the riches of the Old Testament are being ignored. Given the fact that readings from Acts replace the Old Testament lesson during the Easter Season, one realizes just how limited the encounter with the Old Testament is in the average congregation on Sunday mornings." This first point is the most basic and problematic for me. The Old Testament makes up over 60% of all scripture and this is limited to Isaiah 40-66. This can not be a lectionary of based o...

Sundberg in his Article Limitations of the Lectionary also points out a reason more confessional or historical persons would not like the Lectionary. "The Roman Catholic Ordo was taken over, with modifications, by Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and other Protestants in the early seventies. Ecumenical enthusiasts now point with pride to the similar pattern of texts in Sunday Worship. According to prominent ecumenical authorities, this similarity has become a 'sign' of the 'visible unity' of contemporary Christendom. Since, in the view of many in the ecumenical movement, there is no greater goal than the visible unity of the church, the present lectionary has come to be considered a vital tool of inter-church relations." The Revised Common Lectionary has united all of Christendom together. I keep hearing from everyone: "you have the same Bible. You have the same Sunday Readings. You have the same small Catechism." Is there no differen...

Walter Sundberg also writes, "He told me he was teaching a summer school course on Mark and that he decided to let the students pick the passage. They found one quickly: Mark 4:11-12 … It is the hard passages of the Bible that grab our attention. They are the ones about which we want to learn. … My colleague's next comment, delivered in an ironic tone, was especially interesting. 'Naturally,' he said, 'Mark 4:11-12 does not appear in the lectionary.' I understood what he meant. … But one does notice that the gospels, which are read according to the principle of lectio continua, are not read in their entirety. This makes one curious as to what is left out and by what criteria." There are many passages that are neither in our current three year lectionary nor the Historic one year lectionary. You may look for yourself to see if your favorite passages are included. I have a friend that has noticed that several of the texts he has been preaching on lat...

Walter Sundberg wrote an article titled Limitations of the Lectionary in it he makes a few points I would like to tag. First, "The lectionary had done its disruptive work yet another week. It had confused the congregation by placing disparate passages of the Bible in juxtaposition. It gave two of these passages a simplified point of comparison and left the third hanging. The Lectionary put the pastor in a dilemma. It presented an awkward combination of themes and issues that demand separate and careful treatment. The sermon we heard concentrated, as usual, on the Gospel. The Old Testament, as usual, was left in the dust." While the Lectionary added the Old Testament in the mid 20th Century it still often takes a back seat. But this is not the point to highlight, because the Lectionary was supposed to take consideration to make a connection between the Old Testament lesson and the Gospel lesson. The lesson that usually does not connect is the Epistle lesson. But ther...

A Lectionary is a series of readings. mot often thought to work through Sundays of the Church Year. Church Year is something that the organized Church or Established Church set up relative to Major Feastivals. This must no be viewed as something that Churches used prior to the Council of Nicea. A Lectionary can also be a set of Reading for a weekly scheduled service. They would be a set of readings which would be read during the offices during the week. Offices are services done at set times each day of the week. These can have their own Lectionary. These would be texts for devotion and Preaching at Monasteries. I might not have all these facts correct. A Lectionary has had many forms over the years. I would love to see any work done regarding lectionaries in the middle Ages. It would be interesting to know what they commonly read on Christmas, Easter, Sundays in Lent. As I understand most Lectionaries from the Tme of the Reformation would have only been one year leactionari...

Pieper again helps us in his closing remarks on this section. We need to defend ourselves from errors. "To speak of three creators, or of a 'division' of the work of creation among the three. Persons, is contrary to Scripture and offends Christian thought. As each Person possesses the whole divine essence, which is one in number, so all opera ad extra , including the creation, are wholly and entirely the work of each person. ... Even Philippi slipped up when he said: 'We see here [in the creation] the activity quite equally divided among all three persons.'" All persons take part in Creation. But there is not three Creators but one creator. Creation can not be divided into what each person does. Nor can it for the entire Trinity does act of Creation. God says "Let us create man in our own image." It does not separate which person pushed the sand together which person Breathed. These can not be separated. The three persons of the Trinity are distinct ...

Pieper again writes, "No matter what size, compared, with the earth, men may ascribe to sun, moon, and stars, these celestial bodies have no independent History and no independent meaning and function, but their history and significance or function are dependent upon the earth. These facts are positively taught in Holy Scripture." This may seem like a crazy thought. Many in the Ancient World thought this to be true. They also thought the earth was flat. The point is that physically the Earth revolves around the Larger bod of Light. The smaller body of Light revolves around the Earth. I have done a diagram of the solar system. I am guessing Pieper never did a solar system. He probably did not think we would land on the moon (the smaller body of Light). All these celestial bodies are connected. The focus of God is upon the Earth. He sent his Son to become man. He came to Earth to save humanity. But All these other bodies revolve around larger bodies. Physical and spiritual side...

Colossians 1:16 "For by him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible." Pieper follows with, "But since the following verses describe heaven and earth as we know them today, as being formed out of the original substance, we rightly understand formed out of the original substance, "heaven and earth" of Genesis 1:1, to be the "rudis moles coeli et terrae" (St Luke 1:9), or in modern phraseology, the "Weltshoff."" I have no idea what those funny words mean. But it sounds a lot like Augustine. Remember Augustine basically said in genesis 1:1 God created the space time continuum and all matter that will ever exist. God created that which we can visibly see and that which is even beyond our comprehension. God created all things necessary. But these things were without order or place. Thus, God needed to place planets trees water animals in the proper place. This is partially what I would also full...

"The Theory, held by Kurz, Delitzsch, Rudelbach, and Guericke, that this tohu vabohu denotes the remains of an earlier world which perished when a part of the angels fell and that the creation described in Genesis 1 is merely the restitution of a prior creation has no foundation whatever in the text." Peiper writes this concerning the 1st day of creation. I agree with Pieper 100%. It is not a fallen creation that needs to be repaired. While this appears to me very similar to the view of a continued creation. God creates the Heavens and the Earth in verse 1 then in verse 3 it is day one. I do not know when Angels Fell but God made his creation good in all respects. Angels are thought to have fallen during the course of Chapter 3. Satan leads Angels and Humans into Sin. This compounds again the complicated view of creation. Is verse one related to verse three? How do the follow through verse 2? I do not know. I see the short falls in the three different views I have been refle...

Sometimes you have to remember you read stuff from a different time. Pieper writes, "The truly scientific study of nature, which is based on experience and observation, knows of no development of organic creatures from the inorganic and no evolution of a higher species from a lower." Pieper's understanding of science was different from ours today. There may still be people who take science seriously today. But since most studies today do not actually advance true science. Science is knowledge this is why there is Sciences that cover Religious thought and the Abnormal. Pieper tells us that real science or knowledge of truth does not show the organic can come from the inorganic. The truth is simple organic hings come from other organic things. Inorganic things come from compression and changes in inorganic things. Rocks can change. Buildings can change. Living things grow and produce other living things. But there is no proof or context in which a particle becomes an animal...

Pieper writes, "Since no human being observed the creation of the world, we have no other authentic account of the creation than the one given by god Himself in the Scriptures. (2 Timothy 3:16, John 10:35) ... All creatures bear the Divine stamp, God's invisible nature, that is, His eternal power and Godhead, are clearly seen from the creation of the World, from the creatures (Romans 1:20)" The only person there was God himself. Maybe "person" is a bad term but deal with it. He bears witness to himself. The Account of Creation is recorded by Moses for all the world to Read. We know how it all started God did it. Pieper starts us off with reminding us there is only one observer. The only observer at the origin is the one who did the experiment. Scientist Document there work to refer back to it. But that only works within time and space. God does not have to think back on Creation when He talks to Moses. He has the experiment sitting in front of Him. Pie...

Got to love people wo use big wors. Pieper says, "these six days are neither to be shortened, for pious reasons, to a moment, nor are they to be exteneded, for imious reasons, to six periods of indefinite length.' Six day of creation or the Hexaemeron is simply the way it is. Six days should be viewed of days including evenings and mornings. Some people look at it as six periods of time. Could it have been shorter or longer? Well the truth is God could do what ever he wants. But God does not lie. Therefore, if God does not lie, then it happened in six days. I love how Pieper adds pious and impious thoughts. It does not matter about intentions. It does not matter whether we are good or evil people. The truth must be confessed in all things. Scripture tells us the truth plain and clear. There are six days of creation. This is not just figurative talk. This is hard for people to simply expect God to tell the truth. God is God and you are not. God says six days, so...

Pieper writes, "Genesis 1 and 2 are not essentially different stories of the creation, but Genesis 2 is plainly seen to be a fuller report of the creation and of the first dwelling place of man." Hebrew or a Hebraic mind set does not view things in a continuous line. I was taught that most of the time Hebrew or Hebraic mind puts emphasis on the Beginning but more importantly the middle phrase. One looks at the middle of Genesis 1-2, you get 1:27-30. The creation of mankind as the pinicle of creation. The other thing the Hebraic mind set likes to do is tell a story cyclical. Thus you find creation once than again (and possibly again). You find other places in scripture were the same story is told again. Sometimes it is repeated so that the Hearer (or Reader) can catch up on details. Just like when you re-read a book you can bring out new insights. The Hebraic mind set does this even in story telling. Genesis 1 should not be viewed as a different event. But they shoul...

I was listening to the radio today. I do enjoy listening to Christian Music from time to time, but it tends to irritate me. There was a song talking to God. It said something like, "you are unchangeable, unsurpassable, or strong." I don't really remember what the adjectives are but the singer says "you." Now when I here you in a song, I think of the audience. "How Great Thou Art" talks about God in the third person. In the psalms, the Psalmist will talk to God using the second person pronoun. But the Psalmist will also from time to time use even the first person pronoun. God speaks to us through the scriptures. I find it interesting that most old archaic hymns use the third person Pronoun. They tell you that he is a Great God. But most modern Christian music appears from a general stand point to be singing to God. They use the second person pronoun. The Psalmist may use the first person pronoun and it can appear in some songs but most often in referenc...