tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post6896402752822621965..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Luther: Marriage is a Secular BusinessJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-63337497426170842422010-10-23T22:29:44.426-04:002010-10-23T22:29:44.426-04:00Now onto a few other steelikat tidbits:
"I d...Now onto a few other steelikat tidbits:<br /><br />"<em>I do understand that medieval church marital law was warped and abusive. I understand furthermore that that fact explains Luther's thought, that he was reacting to an abysmal situation and coming up with something that seemed better. I haven't been convinced that his solution was justified, that it wasn't "passing the buck</em>."<br /><br />This is an example of a meaningless comment. It's a criticism without teeth, because it offers no actual response. It simply says, Luther (and the other reformers) were perhaps in error, yet no reason is given to justify such historical skepticism. Whereas, a <em>mountain of evidence can be produced to show Rome's power of marriage was quite "abysmal." For instance: "Lutheran reformers were reacting to the social effects of traditional marriage law: priests visiting prostitutes and keeping concubines; widespread homosexuality, rape, incest, pornography, and adultery; unchecked violations of laws against wife abuse, child abuse, abortion, and contraception; numerous clandestine marriages and divorces; and much else. Their reforms of marriage law were, in part, an attempt to purge society of this immorality and abuse</em>" (The Reformation of Marriage Law in Martin Luther's Germany: Its Significance Then and Now by John Witte, Jr [Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. 4, No. 2 (1986)].<br /><br />Other than that, this post is now closed. Steelikat, if you have any others comments on the issues you brought up, feel free to post them on your own blog or website.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-7389840391727385322010-10-23T22:28:27.879-04:002010-10-23T22:28:27.879-04:00Let's recap this a bit.
1. I presented a post...Let's recap this a bit.<br /><br />1. I presented a post documenting a romanist miscitation and gross abuse of context pertaining to Luther on marriage. The gross distortion of history occurred when a romanist completely ignored the historcial and actual context of Luther's remarks.<br /><br />2. Having nothing to do with any of the actual content of my post, "steelikat" commented, "<em>If we had been consistent, we would have put baptism and the lord's supper in the hands of the state, as we did marriage. It's a deal with the devil. They couldn't foresee in the 16th century that it would lead to divorce, polygamy, and gay marriage, but in hindsight it was inevitable</em>. "<br /><br />3. Steelikat was shown that the reason baptism and the Lord's Supper were not put in the hands of the state is because they are clearly sacraments. It was also demonstrated repeatedly that the historical situation at the time of Luther's comments demanded taking marriage out of the hands of the corrupt papacy. Thus, the contentions in #2 are: <strong>a)</strong>not relevant to my original post, <strong>b)</strong>not biblically applicable, <strong>c)</strong>not dealing fairly with history.<br /><br />4. Even though steelikat isn't sure if marriage is a sacrament he (or she) appears to be sure I've interpreted Ephesians 5 wrong. Ephesians 5 is not a cryptic text. The context of Ephesians 5 exhorts husbands to love their wives. In verse 28 , Paul argues that every man by nature loves himself, and since marriage makes the two one flesh, a man can't love himself without loving his wife. Paul enforces the argument by comparing it to Christ's love for his bride, the church. Marriage serves as his illustration. No language or illustration can fully express the love of Christ for his bride (the "great mystery" of verse 32). Luther understood Paul to be arguing that as man and wife united marriage are two in one flesh, so God and man are united in the one person Christ, and so Christ and Christendom are one body. Luther explained the papists used Eph. 5:32 to prove marriage was a sacrament (the Vulgate translated "<em>this is a profound mystery</em>" as "<em>sacramentum hoc magnum est</em>" (a great sacrament). He responded by pointing out the great mystery wasn't marriage but rather Christ and his church (see LW 36:94). See also Calvin's commentary on this section. I find it curious that the popular verse from Ephesians 5 used to prove it a sacrament wasn't 5:25, but rather 5:32. <br /><br />5. Steelikat continued to argue the church is needed to rule over marriage in situations like "<em>What happens when a married couple find out that they are actually brother and sister?</em> " and any approval of Luther's view amounts to "pass the buck" to the state. In the context of Luther's time, both the church and state would have spoken out against such a situation. In today's society, church and state function quite differently. Which "church" would rule over marriage now? What would Luther say to a majority of rulers who denied basic Christian morality? Luther's response against the papacy was quite justified at the time. In today's world, the challenge of godless rulers regulating marriage is far different than the godless papacy Luther struggled against. Based on other comments from Luther, one could easily infer he likewise would've chastised some of our current leaders promoting things like gay marriage. The reason being, is that Luther also held civil law was to reflect God's law. Anyone familiar with Luther's writings knows that he did and would criticize and exhort governmental leaders when they acted against such.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-16511403397532699732010-10-23T10:01:18.188-04:002010-10-23T10:01:18.188-04:00Four Pointer
2nd Corinthians does not appear to d...Four Pointer<br /><br />2nd Corinthians does not appear to discourage the Christian from marrying heathen. It appears to forbid it.<br /><br />Those who have married heathen are to remain married if the spouse is willing to stay with them after their conversion/repentance, but that fact does not logically imply permission to do it in the first place. If you marry a nonchristian you committed a sin but you are not subsequently living in sin by staying married.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-57240542833852810412010-10-22T12:45:40.908-04:002010-10-22T12:45:40.908-04:00"Christian marriage," I mean.
Of course..."Christian marriage," I mean.<br /><br />Of course marriage of non-Christians is another question. The church can help the state understand what it is but the church does not have the authority to regulate it.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-67027194751235329952010-10-22T12:40:28.475-04:002010-10-22T12:40:28.475-04:00James Swan,
"You don't appear to care ab...James Swan,<br /><br />"You don't appear to care about this. I suggest, as I did before, to do a bit of homework, and read Luther's response to the 18 impediments of marriage."<br /><br />Oh, I care. Please don't think I don't care. You mean my characterization was too flip? Look, I'm always eager to find an apt and succinct way to summarize my position. In this case, that was "passing the buck." Feel free to assume that my position is a little more well-thought out and nuanced than a person like you, from your perspective, might take from that characterization. Such an assumption cannot fail to have at least a little truth in it.<br /><br />"As to the sacrament issue, you were repeatedly making the same point over and over again "The not contains more regulations of marriage than it does of baptism" perhaps indicating that you thought marriage was either superior to, or on the same level with the sacrament of baptism. The reason why (as has been pointed out to you) baptism is regulated by the church, is because it clearly is a sacrament."<br /><br />OK, I've explained to you that I've been looking into the sacramental position because you've essentially said (as I would see it and succinctly phrase it) "the state should regulate it because it's not a sacrament." Now you have explained to me why you said that. We understand each other better.<br /><br />If you are saying (and I'm sure you are not saying this but I mention it to put things in perspective) that a sacrament is by definition that which the church rightly regulates and that the church by definition ought not regulate sacraments, I would say and would have said from the beginning that marriage is a sacrament, by that idiosyncratic definition.<br /><br />I have said all along that Christian marriage is rightfully regulated by the church, but not because it is a sacrament strictly speaking, because it is a religious thing the state has the responsibility to defend but not to independently and sovereignly define apart from the church. The church must recognize and define marriage and the state must defer.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-23387394639532109712010-10-22T12:39:40.603-04:002010-10-22T12:39:40.603-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-16273414986949666402010-10-22T12:38:21.788-04:002010-10-22T12:38:21.788-04:00If I may be so bold as to comment on James Swan...If I may be so bold as to comment on James Swan's comments...<br /><br />Since Scripture shows us that marriage is not a sacrament, but rather a sign given to all humanity, I think we can now see that Mr. Swan has clearly summed up Luther's point that it should not be lorded over by the church, and that every person (and also every Christian) is free to marry whomever they will [emphasis mine]:<br /><br /><i><b>For Luther, marriage was indeed "the God-appointed and legitimate union of a man and woman"</b> with its ultimate purpose to glorify God (WA 43:310). But as to its working and maintenance, Luther sought to have such matters governed by the state. <b>It wasn't the job of the church to come up with marriage rules and regulations</b>. Like clothing, food, and houses, the working of marriage should be something regulated by secular authority.</i><br /><br />Does this mean we should tolerate things like polygamy and "gay" marriage? Certainly not! Again, any nation that tolerates such things is in danger of the wrath of God. And Mr. Swan articulates such a position [emphases mine]:<br /><br /><i>...keep in mind in Luther's time the power of the Roman church had perpetuated a mess with marriage regulations, and his was a direct reaction to that. <b>The worldview at the time took for granted that marriage was between a man and a woman</b>. He did not foresee a secular authority that would redefine marriage (i.e. homosexual marriage). <b>Of such a legalization, he would have been horrified</b> ["God revenges and punishes the forbidden marriage, so that Sodom and Gomorrah, which God overwhelmed in days of old with fire and brimstone" LW 46:198].</i><br /><br />While a Christian is <i>discouraged</i> from marrying a heathen (<b>2nd Corinthians 6:14-18</b>), the decision to marry that heathen is up to the individual. A certain body of the church may refuse to <i>perform the ceremony</i> (as our church does), but they do not have the power <i>to deny</i> any man from marrying any woman they choose (and vice-versa).<br /><br />Which, if I am correct, was Luther's point.Four Pointerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08709119227948492967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-69809033358985919322010-10-22T12:36:36.609-04:002010-10-22T12:36:36.609-04:00James Swan,
I do understand that Luther's two...James Swan,<br /><br />I do understand that Luther's two kingdom theory says that God rules the world through both the realm of secular government and through the the spiritual realm. Indeed, what little I do know of Luther's doctrine makes it sound quite similar to the prevailing medieval view, without the distortions of an imperial papacy or the idea that the church was superior to the state in such a way that it could freely involve itself in secular affairs. I do understand that medieval church marital law was warped and abusive. I understand furthermore that that fact explains Luther's thought, that he was reacting to an abysmal situation and coming up with something that seemed better. I haven't been convinced that his solution was justified, that it wasn't "passing the buck." Perhaps as I learn more I will someday be so convinced. We'll see. It is absurd of you to be angry at me about it though.<br /><br />"Obviously, you haven't been in the arena with Romanists and their alleged patents on the the real presence, sacraments, a visible church."<br /><br />Indeed, and I guess I don't want to enter that arena if so doing would create in me the fallacious tendency to jump to the conclusion that anyone talking about tradition, history, the sacraments, etc. is a RC.<br /><br />"Note particualrly my comments on Ephesians and marriage. You seem to have grown strangely silent responding to them. Last I recall, you stated, 'I'll get back to you on that when I've done more research.'"<br /><br />You misunderstood me. I wasn't acknowledging that you'd proven that the passage in Ephesians did not exist, or that it is not evidence for the sacramentalists (that, there is "no biblical basis" for that point of view). Indeed, I say that I have shown that there is at least somewhat of a basis for the sacramental position in my discussion of Ephesisans 5. You haven't as far as I know proven me wrong.<br /><br />It seemed to me that you were pushing me to get off the fence, to simply decide that marriage is a sacrament, when I had only begun to take the idea seriously I think a few days before that. To me this seems irresponsibly hasty and so I responded "no, I have to do more research first." What I meant is that I don't know how the sacramentalists argue from scripture that marriage is a sacrament. I'm sure the Ephesians passage must figure prominently in that argument, but it remains to be seen (by me). I need to find out if the sacramental position really is a valid tradition and look at the scriptural arguments the sacramentalists use to back it up. Ephesians five is an arrow in their quiver (i.e. you certainly did exaggerate when you said "no scriptural basis") but if they have nothing better than my rather offhand analysis their argument does not succeed.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-45364644631736044632010-10-22T12:35:46.108-04:002010-10-22T12:35:46.108-04:00James Swan,
"Frankly, I'm not interested...James Swan,<br /><br />"Frankly, I'm not interested in your re-definitions"<br /><br />You are misunderstanding and overreacting. The idea of societal institutions is not something I invented, nor was it defined as an improvement to or to correct the medieval and Lutheran "two kingdoms" idea. I reckon the two conceptions are probably compatible, as they come from two different arenas of discourse. The only reason I mentioned the family being a primary institution separate from the church and the state is that it seemed to me that you wanted to subordinate the family to the church and the state. I was simply reacting to what I saw you trying to do, forgetting for a moment that we were even talking about Luther's two kingdoms. It had nothing to do, again, with the two kingdoms theory. If you don't know what I'm talking about, don't worry about it.<br /><br />"What I find distracting is your criticizing of Luther's view from the get-go without first understanding it."<br /><br />You forget that there were plenty of important things that I did know from Luther's view, partly because I've heard of it before--I read a lot and I have always been interested in theology and religious history, but primarily because YOU TALKED ABOUT IT right here on this blog in this article and others you've written. I read and understood your discussions of Luther's view, to the degree you made yourself clear. I was reacting specifically to your explanations of Luther's view.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-52917703381329134172010-10-21T20:26:48.923-04:002010-10-21T20:26:48.923-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-68398968745387774932010-10-21T18:26:22.782-04:002010-10-21T18:26:22.782-04:00I am not arguing with you and I can't, since y...<i>I am not arguing with you and I can't, since you and I don't positively disagree on the question of marriage being a sacrament.YOU brought it up, told me that it was perfectly acceptable for the church to "pass the buck" (and no I don't think that reminding me that we've only given up SOME of our authority to the state since after all, we still preach sermons about marriage and keep marriage registries is a very impressive response) since after all MARRIAGE IS NOT A SACRAMENT.</i><br /><br />Actually, if you scroll up, what you refer to as "pass the buck" was that in a historical context, the Roman church had corrupted and abused marriage. Luther's solution was to combat this gross abuse by taking it out of their hands. You don't appear to care about this. I suggest, as I did before, to do a bit of homework, and read Luther's response to the 18 impediments of marriage. It's one thing to sit in front of your computer 500 years later and caricature history as "pass the buck"- it's quite another to do some work and study a subject, and see why Luther said what he did. <br /><br />As to the sacrament issue, you were repeatedly making the same point over and over again "The not contains more regulations of marriage than it does of baptism" perhaps indicating that you thought marriage was either superior to, or on the same level with the sacrament of baptism. The reason why (as has been pointed out to you) baptism is regulated by the church, is because it clearly is a sacrament. Marriage on the other hand, has no such clearly defined pedigree. You yourself have admitted as much, and I assume you're still working on making it into a sacrament, despite all the comments from myself and 4P.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-72961857007261303172010-10-21T18:25:56.288-04:002010-10-21T18:25:56.288-04:00I will but what I was getting at is that Regardles...<i>I will but what I was getting at is that Regardless of the two kingdoms idea there are a small number of primary kingdoms, "institutions" one would usually say, </i><br /><br />Frankly, I'm not interested in your re-definitions, particularly since you don't appear to grasp the view from which you're borrowing the terms. I mean no offense. You'll first want to deal with Luther's view, and explain why his notion of two kingdoms is inferior to yours. Before you do that, I'm not interested.<br /><br /><i>Perhaps you've never thought something through that you don't yet know the answer to, which is why you characterize the process as "making it up as you go along."</i><br /><br />What I find distracting is your criticizing of Luther's view from the get-go without first understanding it. Perhaps this is part of your learning process. Frankly, I find it distracting and time-consuming, which is why I generally don't respond to such comments. My posts on <i>Luther, Exposing the Myth</i> have to do with Romanist abuses of context and history, not debates on marriage in general. <br /><br /><i>I am saying, instead of prejudicing my words with what your preconceptions about my background</i><br /><br />Have it your way, but don't be surprised if I interact with you far more infrequently. I simply don't have the time to fumble around trying to determine what you mean, and then reinvent Luther's terms to describe your own view. <br /><br /><i>And the propaganda has even worked on you a little bit, apparently, or why your assumption?</i><br /><br />Obviously, you haven't been in the arena with Romanists and their alleged patents on the the real presence, sacraments, a visible church. I don't have the time for such a dispute with you. I am Reformed. If you want to know what i believe on these things, track down the Heidelberg Catechism.<br /><br /><i>That's an exaggeration, and a way of talking that one engages in when he wants to avoid intellectually engaging the question.</i><br /><br />Nope, you've been engaged, and the above discussion proves it. Note particualrly my comments on Ephesians and marriage. You seem to have grown strangely silent responding to them. Last I recall, you stated, "I'll get back to you on that when I've done more research."<br /><br /><i>We are not getting anywhere here, and the post has scrolled off the main page.</i><br /><br />That's why, if you look to the right of the blog, at least 20 of the recent entries are posted on the sidebar. all you need to do is look at "recent posts" click on the link that says "Luther: Marriage is a Secular Business"James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-43033389089879556462010-10-21T16:52:56.384-04:002010-10-21T16:52:56.384-04:004 pointer,
Thank you.
I am afraid you are right ...4 pointer,<br /><br />Thank you.<br /><br />I am afraid you are right about our being a people who have abandoned God, and there being nothing left for us but judgement.<br /><br />I know you are right that it's not enough for something to be a sign for it to be a sacrament.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-41164481882868261212010-10-21T11:50:16.015-04:002010-10-21T11:50:16.015-04:00I certainly cannot agree with that. Now government...<i>I certainly cannot agree with that. Now governments are "joining together" same sex couples, Are those marriages?</i><br /><br />Just to touch on this without starting a new thread: I would say that <i>this</i> would be the fulfillment of <b>Romans 1:26-27</b>--"For this reason <b>God gave them up to vile passions</b>. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful..."<br /><br />If homosexual marriage is allowed by a government, then that is a people that has abandoned God, and has been abandoned by God, and nothing is left for them but Judgment and a fate similar to Babylon or Assyria.<br /><br /><i>Are non-Christian marriages a sign of the union of Christ with his church?</i><br /><br />Actually, I would say that yes, even non-Christian marriages are a sign (or, better, a <i>figure</i>) of the union between Christ and His church and yes, even <i>points to</i> the union between Christ and His church. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (<b>Genesis 2:24</b>), whether godly or heathen, Jew or Gentile, Greek, Barbarian or Scythian. This was for all peoples.<br /><br />When Christ gave the commands about marriage (<b>Matthew 5:27-32; Matthew 19:1-12</b>) He did not differentiate between Christian and non-Christian unions. The commands were to Christian and non-Christian alike. <b>Mark 10:6-9</b>--"From the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate" and Paul, "Do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For ‘the two,’ He says, ‘shall become one flesh’" (<b>1st Corinthians 6:16</b>) and the writer of Hebrews, "Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled" (<b>Hebrews 13:4</b>).<br /><br />Marriage between two Christians, however, should be <i>different</i> than marriage between non-Christians. It should reflect the love of Christ for His church, <b>Ephesians 5:24-25</b>--"Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her" and <b>Romans 8:35</b>--"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?" and <b>38-39</b>--"I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." This is the love with which Christ loves His church.<br /><br />Yet Christ also tells us that in the last days marriage will become as it was in Noah's day. Man will have corrupted the institution of marriage to the point that it will be nearly unrecognizable and insignificant in man's eyes. <b>Matthew 24:38-39</b>--"For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark...so also will the coming of the Son of Man be." Thus we see why God is slowly removing His hand of protection form many nations who have abandoned Him, and allowing them to join the wicked to the wicked. It is as if He is saying, "If that’s what you want—then so be it."<br /><br />There were (and are) many <i>figures</i> and such that <i>point</i> toward Christ, but are not necessarily <i>sacraments</i>--that is, they are not necessarily peculiar to the church. "The Heavens declare the glory of God" (Psalm 19:1). The stars and planets are not a sacrament, they are not holy, even though they speak of God's glory.Four Pointerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08709119227948492967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-480037267908134212010-10-21T11:07:37.883-04:002010-10-21T11:07:37.883-04:00In another comment box, somebody recently said thi...In another comment box, somebody recently said this about another commenter:<br /><br />"_____, you are much less clever than you think you are."<br /><br />While the conversation may have degenerated to that even if the person being attacked tried to be more anonymous, it seems like that sort of impertinence and rudeness online is more likely to occur the more that people think they know about the background of the person they are tempted to attack. Somehow, familiarity breeds contempt. Furthermore, there are people, I suspect even a particular blogger on this blog, who seem to try to learn personal information about commenters, and use it, sometimes months later, to make deliberate personal attacks just because they enjoy attacking people.<br /><br />Personal information could even be used to aid in identity theft, or by some nut in a personal harrassment campaign.<br /><br />In short, trying to remain more or less anonymous is a good idea. It's a matter of personal safety and self-protection, of not behaving irresponsibly.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-88340807305095786472010-10-21T10:56:31.775-04:002010-10-21T10:56:31.775-04:00James,
I will take some time to learn about Luthe...James,<br /><br />I will take some time to learn about Luther's Two Kingdoms, but I'll be really annoyed at you for giving me the assignment if I don't find a more compelling argument than what you've already giving me for turning over regulation of marriage to the state.<br /><br />In the meantime, of course you know that the two kingdom idea was not completely original conception of Luthers, that it is the ordinary medieval conception of things, except that by the late middle ages the idea had been distorted by the idea that the church was superior to the state in all matters and that it could intrude at will on secular affairs, as well as the idea of an imperial papacy? <br /><br />Tim Enloe has written some interesting things about that.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-79566719540922868852010-10-21T00:43:09.147-04:002010-10-21T00:43:09.147-04:00I'm sorry, rather than "immediately"...I'm sorry, rather than "immediately" I should have said "not by the mediation of the state." the point being that Christ joins them together when they join each other together, Neither the church nor the state does the joining.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-67046478321043397932010-10-21T00:18:05.541-04:002010-10-21T00:18:05.541-04:00"suggested you research the term.."
I w..."suggested you research the term.."<br /><br />I will but what I was getting at is that Regardless of the two kingdoms idea there are a small number of primary kingdoms, "institutions" one would usually say, and that the family, based on the marital relationship, is one of them--as much a primary sovereign institution as the church or the state. Now the medievals did not understand things in quite that way and that is also not exactly the same sort of distinction as that between the spiritual and secular realm, but it is a valid conception of the world and I have long believed it is, it is applicable to some of the things we've talked about. The state does not join together the man and wife and neither does the church, even as instruments. They marry each other and Christ joins them together, immediately.<br /><br />"the answer to such a point should be obvious."<br /><br />Exactly. Why do you think I said to 4 pointer, "don't answer that question?" (but please answer the other one if you can). It was a rhetorical question. I was acknowledging that both 4 pointer and I know the answer to that question, but the other question is the one I am thinking through. Perhaps you've never thought something through that you don't yet know the answer to, which is why you characterize the process as "making it up as you go along."<br /><br />"Yes, all sorts of people say that."<br /><br />And should do so. If we knew each other in the real world, all sorts of details about our lives would quickly come up naturally in our conversations. But what many people don't get is that 1. your comments page is not the real world. 2. It is however public and people who claim to value their privacy should act that way. 3. There are literally questions of safety involved, 4. My telling you what my background is would give allow you to avoid, to a degree, dealing simply with what my words, what I am saying, instead of prejudicing my words with what your preconceptions about my background.<br /><br />"Rome thinks they've got those things trademarked."<br /><br />And the propaganda has even worked on you a little bit, apparently, or why your assumption?<br /><br />"no biblical basis..."<br /><br />That's an exaggeration, and a way of talking that one engages in when he wants to avoid intellectually engaging the question.<br /><br />We are not getting anywhere here, and the post has scrolled off the main page. I think I know where you're coming from and I hope by now you know where I'm coming from. This is a minor, not a major, and furthermore I've already told you that as far as I know there are exactly three sacraments. I am not arguing with you and I can't, since you and I don't positively disagree on the question of marriage being a sacrament.<br /><br />YOU brought it up, told me that it was perfectly acceptable for the church to "pass the buck" (and no I don't think that reminding me that we've only given up SOME of our authority to the state since after all, we still preach sermons about marriage and keep marriage registries is a very impressive response) since after all MARRIAGE IS NOT A SACRAMENT.<br /><br />How do you expect me to respond to that? Of course I'm going to look at your argument critically, question your assumptions. I don't watch TV, they haven't shut my brain off yet.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-44841042624933502502010-10-20T20:20:17.000-04:002010-10-20T20:20:17.000-04:00Rather than two kingdoms, I would say that the nat...<i>Rather than two kingdoms, I would say that the natural family (leaving aside the question of whether marriage is a sacrament) is a third kingdom</i><br /><br />This is one of those instance in which I think you're just kind of making it up as you go along. It appears to me, you don't really understand what is meant by the term "two kingdoms." I think I earlier suggested you research the term. <br /><br /><i>I indeed recognize that you are reposting something that you posted earlier. Do you want me to say that that passage is valid?</i><br /><br />I reposted the passage based on this comment from you: <i>"I certainly cannot agree with that. Now governments are "joining together" same sex couples, Are those marriages?"</i> In the framework of this discussion, the answer to such a point should be obvious. Note, the opening words:<br /><br />"The civil ruler holds his authority of God. His will is to appropriate God's desire. His law is to reflect God's law. His rule is to respect God's creation ordinances and institutions and to implement His purposes. His civil calling is no less spiritual than that of the church. Marriage is thus still completely subject to Godly law, but this law is now to be administered by a civil ruler."<br /><br /><i>If on the other hand, you are hoping that my reading your comments will cause me to change my mind and agree with 4 pointer that governments have the power to join together any two people they will, or any two people at all for that matter, I must disappoint you. </i><br /><br />Perhaps 4-pointer is. My primary desire is that you at least understand that which you disagree with. Secondly, I would hope you'd think very seriously about making something a sacrament that has no Biblical basis to be one. <br /><br /><i>am not trying to hurt you or make you feel invalidated in any way</i><br /><br />nope, I'm not feeling that. <br /><br /><i>I am by the grace of God a Christian. That's all you need to know to evaluate what I've said. </i><br /><br />Yes, all sorts of people say that- <br /><br /><i>It is very interesting and says something about the unbalanced state of affairs in American Protestantism that so many people think that belief in the real presence, sacraments, a visible church, etc. makes people think you're RC.</i><br /><br />Yes, Rome thinks they've got those things trademarked.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-49540267989415890592010-10-20T20:00:15.080-04:002010-10-20T20:00:15.080-04:00I have to say that I'm pretty sure that some o...I have to say that I'm pretty sure that some of the things you and 4-pointer said are wrong (but holy cow, not everything you've said!!!)<br /><br />I think I should be more careful, in cases such as these, to acknowledge that most of what the other person said is correct (usually that is the case) rather than simply pounce on the one thing that I don't agree with. I can see how it might seem that I'm just automatically disagreeing with everything you say.<br /><br />For sure, I agree with many of the things you and four pointer have said. As I've explicitly said, there are just a few things I didn't agree with.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-43503789240142860732010-10-20T19:51:43.431-04:002010-10-20T19:51:43.431-04:00I'm glad I wasn't rude to you.
I will say...I'm glad I wasn't rude to you.<br /><br />I will say that because of your comments, I have been giving the idea (that it might be reasonable to see marriage as a sacrament) some serious consideration, which is something I have never done before. Maybe that's why it seems to you that I'm making things up as I go along.<br /><br />What I'm about to do may very well be rude, but it is a deliberate thing that I do "online," because you and I don't have a personal relationship in the same way we would if we were interacting in the real world, and because I don't want anyone reading this (anyone can read this, it's public!) to evaluate what I'm saying based on my "background." <br /><br />I am by the grace of God a Christian. That's all you need to know to evaluate what I've said. <br /><br />And since you seem concerned about it I'll go further than I usually do and admit I'm not a Roman Catholic. It is very interesting and says something about the unbalanced state of affairs in American Protestantism that so many people think that belief in the real presence, sacraments, a visible church, etc. makes people think you're RC.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-309488504924691412010-10-20T19:29:51.729-04:002010-10-20T19:29:51.729-04:00Rather than two kingdoms, I would say that the nat...Rather than two kingdoms, I would say that the natural family (leaving aside the question of whether marriage is a sacrament) is a third kingdom, distinct from the other two you mentioned. I think it would be accurate also, to discern another kingdom--the small local community, distinct from the state or the larger spheres of govt.<br /><br />If that's the case, marriage is subordinate to neither the church or the state, but is its own primary institution.<br /><br />I indeed recognize that you are reposting something that you posted earlier. Do you want me to say that that passage is valid? I do need to know exactly what you mean by valid first, but I have a feeling that I may be able to satisfy you.<br /><br />If on the other hand, you are hoping that my reading your comments will cause me to change my mind and agree with 4 pointer that governments have the power to join together any two people they will, or any two people at all for that matter, I must disappoint you. I hope I can convince you that I mean that simply, frankly, and honestly, and am not trying to hurt you or make you feel invalidated in any way. I think I don't always phrase things in the moat polite way, and I am sorry for that.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-43102782258792788672010-10-20T19:27:21.448-04:002010-10-20T19:27:21.448-04:00What does "valid" mean to you, as you ju...<i>What does "valid" mean to you, as you just used the word?</i><br /><br />I'm using it in this sense: that our points are reasonable and acceptable, based on the argumentation presented. <br /><br /><i>In situations such as this, sometimes people who don't agree with me complain that I don't think what they are saying is "valid." My first thought is sometimes "you must not think what I'm saying is valid, since you don't agree with it,",</i><br /><br />Correct, I think your position is not reasonable or acceptable based on the evidence you've provided or critiqued.<br /><br /><i> but my first or second thought is usually "did I say something unkind? was I rude? is he very sensitive? did I say something mean to him?"</i><br /><br />Not at all, i don't think you've been any of those things.<br /><br />At first though, I thought you were simply a zealous Romanist. Quite frankly, if we're going to continue, it would be helpful to know exactly which theological background or persuasion best characterizes your beliefs.<br /><br />It appears to me, you're kind of making up your position on this topic as we go along, but on the other hand, you're certain both 4-pointer and I are wrong. I may have you pegged wrong here, but that's what it looks like to me.<br /><br />In other words, it seems you don't know your own position, but you know that a certain position is wrong. Based on that, you're filling in what you need to, to arrive at your own position. I think if one follows our interaction, this is clear.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-20277843956288374332010-10-20T19:09:55.871-04:002010-10-20T19:09:55.871-04:00James,
What does "valid" mean to you, a...James,<br /><br />What does "valid" mean to you, as you just used the word?In situations such as this, sometimes people who don't agree with me complain that I don't think what they are saying is "valid." My first thought is sometimes "you must not think what <i>I'm</i> saying is valid, since you don't agree with it," but my first or second thought is usually "did I say something unkind? was I rude? is he very sensitive? did I say something mean to him?"<br /><br />I know what "valid" means as a technical term in logic, but I think it has an everyday meaning that I don't "get." I do worry about this, and I would appreciate your feedback.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-20709794608046723962010-10-20T18:23:24.676-04:002010-10-20T18:23:24.676-04:00I certainly cannot agree with that. Now government...<i>I certainly cannot agree with that. Now governments are "joining together" same sex couples, Are those marriages? Are non-Christian marriages a sign of the union of Christ with his church?</i><br /><br />I posted this earlier:<br />__________________<br />Marriage is an institution of the earthly kingdom, not a sacrament of the heavenly kingdom.<br /><br />For Luther,this does not mean that marriage is beyond the scope of God's authority and law, nor that it should be beyond the influence and concern of the church.<br /><br />The civil ruler holds his authority of God. His will is to appropriate God's desire. His law is to reflect God's law. His rule is to respect God's creation ordinances and institutions and to implement His purposes. His civil calling is no less spiritual than that of the church. Marriage is thus still completely subject to Godly law, but this law is now to be administered by a civil ruler.<br /><br />The church, the reformers argued, retained a four-fold responsibility in marriage. Through its preaching of the Word and the teaching of its theologians, the church had to communicate to the civil authorities and their subjects God's law and will for marriage and the family. Second, it was incumbent upon church members as priests to quiet, through instruction and prayer, the consciences of those troubled by marriage problems and to hold out a model of spiritual freedom, love, care, and equality in their own married lives. Third, to aid church members in their instruction and care, and to give notice to all members of society of a couple's marriage, the church was to develop a publicly-available marriage registry which all married couples would be required to sign. Fourth, the pastor and consistory of the church were to instruct and discipline the marriages of its church members by blessing and instructing the couple at their public church wedding ceremony and by punishing sexual turpitude or egregious violations of marriage law with the ban or excommunication.<br />_______________<br /><br />Based on these comments steelikat, can you answer your own points?James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.com