Posted on 06/08/2009 10:08:40 AM PDT by markomalley
Your view of repentance and my view are completely different. No one can come to the Son unless the Father draws him. Your view of God is different than mine as well. God is in control of the Pharaohs as well as His people. Not a sparrow will fall to the ground that God does not control. Just ask Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego.
Tiller wouldn't have been given a bull of excommunication by surprise. He would have been confronted first in private, then in the presence of a few witnesses, then maybe in the parish council (not always the last one).
In other words, he had to have been pretty flagrant to get excommunicated.
Wasn't it also in Wichita where those Catholic students were raped and murdered? Have they got a Hellmouth? Call Buffy quick!
I'm guessing he's re-thought that by now.
John Brown started a fight that killed 600k to end slavery, never mind that the US was the only major power to do so in a war. Most other European states did so by law, with little bloodshed and didn't have the social stains and bad racial divisions like we did.
If you and others keep following this path, there will be war that makes the last Civil War look like a bad day in the Religion forum. In the last war, there were defined states of “free” and “slave”. Areas where like minded people could flee to or move to. Now, it would be house to house, block by block, much like the Finnish civil war.
Is that what you want? Is that what Christ's message is?
But that was after a few beers at the local Mexican joint, so he might have been talking about the burritos.
Interesting...so excommunication is handled at the parish level in the LCMS? If so, is it binding on any parish in the synod?
How long was Tiller operating there? I was only half-kidding about the Hellmouth thing - not in the Buffy sense, but in the sense that when you invite evil in, it doesn’t just stay in your house.
Where in the hell did you get that idea. All I said is that if Roeder was seeking "justice" that he (Roeder) should be executed. If he was merely attempting to stop Tiller from committing murder, then in the eyes of the law (as it has been since the dawn of time) he would be justified.
Do you believe that Abortion is murder?
Yes or no?
If yes, then why is the murder of children in a clinic any different than the murder of children on the street?
If it is different, then maybe abortion is NOT murder and Roeder is without justification or excuse.
If abortion is NOT murder, then we in the "pro-life" community should stop saying that it is. We should call it something else. Like "A bad choice".
If, in fact, there is no difference between an abortionist killing an unborn child in a clinic and a predator killing a child on the street and both acts are "murder", then Roeder should be looked upon as a hero rather than as a monster.
FWIW there have been no late term abortions in Kansas since 5/31/09.
Are you happy about that or does that make you sad?
I think in his case it was a matter of him joining the church to please his wife and then being very inactive--something we pastors see not infrequently.
You are almost certainly right. Excommunication is a last step, after previous futile admonition.
I would love to carry out Christ’s message about those who hurt little ones, but I don’t think we have enough millstomes.
It is probably just as well. The media are lazy and agenda-driven. They could not do a neutral, descriptive story even if they wanted to. At the least, they would have dismissed the LCMS as a small "fringe" group that is "against women." They would falsely say the LCMS is "fundamentalist." That is the best you could expect. At the worst, they would do a hit piece on the LCMS. People with any discernment at all would see through it but it would be ugly. Then again, people who have never heard of confessional Lutheranism might check out the LCMS with the idea that anything the mainstream media hate must have something good about it or the media would not hate it.
Yes.
If so, is it binding on any parish in the synod?
It should be. Unfortunately, some pastors can be a little lax about respecting an excommunication done by a brother pastor.
When I was pastor in Nebraska, our LCMS congregation excommunicated a man who dumped his wife to take up with another woman. What did the guy do? Joined the ELCA congregation down the road.
The State of South Carolina organized militia FIRED ON FORT SUMTER. That started the war.
He could have gone a step more and left his wife for a man. Then he would have been qualified to be Bishop in some liberal denominations. It's not really funny but I had to make a bad joke.
To that, I would answer as follows:
Rom 3:8 And why not do evil that good may come?--as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.
From Aquinas,
Article 3. Whether it is lawful for a private individual to kill a man who has sinned?
It is not moral to deliberately use an evil means, even if some good is the ultimate intent.
Objection 1. It would seem lawful for a private individual to kill a man who has sinned. For nothing unlawful is commanded in the Divine law. Yet, on account of the sin of the molten calf, Moses commanded (Exodus 32:27): "Let every man kill his brother, and friend, and neighbor." Therefore it is lawful for private individuals to kill a sinner.
Objection 2. Further, as stated above (2, ad 3), man, on account of sin, is compared to the beasts. Now it is lawful for any private individual to kill a wild beast, especially if it be harmful. Therefore for the same reason, it is lawful for any private individual to kill a man who has sinned.
Objection 3. Further, a man, though a private individual, deserves praise for doing what is useful for the common good. Now the slaying of evildoers is useful for the common good, as stated above (Article 2). Therefore it is deserving of praise if even private individuals kill evil-doers.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i) [Can. Quicumque percutit, caus. xxiii, qu. 8: "A man who, without exercising public authority, kills an evil-doer, shall be judged guilty of murder, and all the more, since he has dared to usurp a power which God has not given him."
I answer that, As stated above (Article 2), it is lawful to kill an evildoer in so far as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community, so that it belongs to him alone who has charge of the community's welfare. Thus it belongs to a physician to cut off a decayed limb, when he has been entrusted with the care of the health of the whole body. Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals, can lawfully put evildoers to death.
Reply to Objection 1. The person by whose authority a thing is done really does the thing as Dionysius declares (Coel. Hier. iii). Hence according to Augustine (De Civ. Dei i, 21), "He slays not who owes his service to one who commands him, even as a sword is merely the instrument to him that wields it." Wherefore those who, at the Lord's command,slew their neighbors and friends, would seem not to have done this themselves, but rather He by whose authority they acted thus: just as a soldier slays the foe by the authority of his sovereign, and the executioner slays the robber by the authority of the judge.
Reply to Objection 2. A beast is by nature distinct from man, wherefore in the case of a wild beast there is no need for an authority to kill it; whereas, in the case of domestic animals, such authority is required, not for their sake, but on account of the owner's loss. On the other hand a man who has sinned is not by nature distinct from good men; hence a public authority is requisite in order to condemn him to death for the common good.
Reply to Objection 3. It is lawful for any private individual to do anything for the common good, provided it harm nobody: but if it be harmful to some other, it cannot be done, except by virtue of the judgment of the person to whom it pertains to decide what is to be taken from the parts for the welfare of the whole.
Summa Theologica II-II-64-3
It is not moral to use an illicit means, even if some good is ultimately intended.
We have to fight to get the laws changed. We have to work to change the culture so that this (D&E abortion) becomes unthinkable.
Vigilante justice doesn't accomplish that. If vigilante justice is OK for Tiller, then it should be OK for a whole host of high profile people. All it does is create martyrs.
You are almost certainly right. Excommunication is a last step, after previous futile admonition
And, believe it or not, those steps (along with the Scriptural citation of Matthew 18:15-17) appear as a mandatory part of the Model Consitution for Congregations of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (C15.01) Ironically, that Scriptural citation is the only Scripture directly quoted in that document.
So far Carhart, who does the same thing, is the only one who's said he's interested in that sort of thing.
Could be that super late term abortionists are viewed pretty much the same as the crazy guys who hammer down their testicles and penis with hammers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.