Comments for Light from Light

Comment on How many words is a picture worth? by Erich

Erich — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 00:40:51 +0000

To: stmatthewswinona,

“Does that mean we are detracting from God’s Word?”

Yes. Simply the fact that you have a slideshow takes the dignity that the Divine Liturgy, the Word of God and the sacraments deserve away. It detracts, or distracts from the Word. It’s the equivalent of having a children’s sermon in the service. It dumbs things down, and panders to sentimentality.

Causing others to stumble is a very serious matter, but you are correct in regard to our reactions. More information is necessary. Perhaps this is a concert. After all the pastor is not vested. If this is a concert and not a worship service I’d say it is completely meet and right, but that’s a big if.

You are not correct, however, when you say that churches need to be more careful abut what pictures they put up in the internet. What they need to be more careful about is assuring that their practice is in concord with their dogma.

A Lutheran service should never look like the local Mega-Church mishigas, Baptist blow-out, or Zwinglian psalm sing.

Comment on How many words is a picture worth? by stmatthewswinona

stmatthewswinona — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 19:58:40 +0000

There appears to be a lot of assumptions about this picture. It is dangerous to associate contemporary worship with detracting from God’s Word. We often use slide shows during sermons and our screen partially blocks the alter. Does that mean we are detracting from God’s Word?

I do not believe this church did anything wrong except post a picture that would “cause others to stumble”, although I know that was not their intent. Churches need to be more careful about the pictures they share on the Internet. An innocent picture can cause a lot of problems for churches. This is an excellent example of the backlash that can occur.

Comment on How many words is a picture worth? by Erich

Erich — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:12:46 +0000

I cannot say how much this saddens me. I’ve been a fan of Koiné for quite some time, but to see that they would put themselves before the altar and the Word of God…

If this were a concert that would be one thing, if they were plating their hymns, and songs (the non-hymns they sing, that I’ve heard, are rather sound doctrinally) to the side or in the back of the church that would be one thing, but to place them in front of the Divine Liturgy. Sad.

Comment on How many words is a picture worth? by pcxian

pcxian — Sun, 02 Jun 2013 22:36:45 +0000

What does the picture above say? It looks to me like Christians praising and worshipping God in His sanctuary similar to what the writer of Psalm 150 wrote about. Todd Wilken’s comment that the picture is “a general illustration of how contemporary worship distracts from the focus on the Word and Sacraments” is ludicrous and unfounded. The grace of God is not delineated by the location of the baptismal font, the pulpit, what the pastor is wearing, a statue of Jesus, or even the cross for that matter. That grace is solely God’s word and the sacraments. If God’s word and sacraments were being spoken and dispensed then I see no reason to complain or judge what this congregation was doing at that particular worship service.

Comment on Aquinas Quoting Augustine on Scripture Alone by Rick

Rick — Wed, 29 May 2013 21:06:12 +0000

Hello Francisco. Thanks for stopping by.

I don’t know any genuine Lutheran who holds (b). In fact, (b) sounds ridiculous, and is especially out of place in response to a post that cites Aquinas and Augustine as authorities. Please see the straw man logical fallacy. The title to this post stands true.

I’m glad we agree with Aquinas “that Scripture alone is inspired/inerrant.”

Comment on Aquinas Quoting Augustine on Scripture Alone by Francisco J. Romero Carrasquillo

Francisco J. Romero Carrasquillo — Wed, 29 May 2013 04:50:37 +0000

One must distinguish between:

a) The idea that Scripture alone is inspired/inerrant, and
b) The idea that Scripture alone is a source for theological argumentation.

Traditionally and officially, Catholics (Aquinas included) believe (a) but deny (b). Most protestants believe both (a) and (b). And when the term “sola scriptura” (“Scripture alone”) is used, both Catholics and Protestants usually refer to (b). Thus, if you want your post to be as shocking as the title makes it sound (“Aquinas held sola scriptura!!!”), you would have to show that Aquinas held (b). But your post only shows that Aquinas held (a). Not that he held (b)—because, of course, he didn’t, as the text itself shows.

Comment on Photographing Outdoor Christmas Lights by Mark J Stalling

Mark J Stalling — Sat, 11 May 2013 08:50:57 +0000

outdoor christmas lights looks best in snow night.LED commercial Christmas lights are well-suited for outdoor use.

Comment on Aquinas Quoting Augustine on Scripture Alone by brucknerfan

brucknerfan — Tue, 07 May 2013 19:31:07 +0000

I have read that Luther’s separation of the Apocryphal books from the rest of the Old Testament was simply following through on Jerome’s suggestion to do so many centuries before.

Apparently both Augustine and Aquinas accepted the Apocrypha, Augustine because it was included in the Septuagint, and Aquinas because it was included in the Vulgate.

It is nice to see pre-Reformation theologians distinguishing Scripture from tradition. It’s also nice when “confessional Lutherans” do the same thing and maintain the Formal Principle of the Lutheran Church.

CPH is to be commended for publishing an annotated edition of the ESV Apocrypha, following through on Luther’s note at the beginning of the Apocrypha in his translation of the Bible which says that the Apocryphal books are worth reading. The Church of England adopted Luther’s position.

Comment on Aquinas Quoting Augustine on Scripture Alone by Rick

Rick — Tue, 07 May 2013 17:47:10 +0000

Hello brucknerfan. Thanks for stopping by.

I believe St. Augustine accepted the deutero-canonical books as part of the canon.

St. Augustine was a contemporary of St. Jerome. St. Jerome produced the standard Latin translation of the Bible called the Vulgate. He rejected the non-Hebrew books of the Old Testament, and called them “Apocrypha.”

I do not know what Thomas Aquinas’ position on those books was. If you find out, please let us know.

Here is an excerpt from the forward to “The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition with Notes,” 2012 published by Concordia Publishing House:

“The Apocrypha have had a mixed reception across the centuries because of differing answers to one, fundamental question: are these writings part of the Bible or not? Are they sacred, inspired Scripture like the Old and New Testament and therefore to be numbered among the books of the canon or not? The Apocrypha were included in the Septuagint, the very first translation of the Hebrew Bible into another language, Greek. Yet they were not included in the final canon of the Hebrew Bible, which was debated by rabbis at Jamnia (near Jerusalem) in AD 93. Thus they were also not included among the very 39 books that comprise the Old Testament in Christian Bibles today.

“The books of Apocrypha, however, were widely used by the early Christians, and for good reason: their Scripture was primarily the Greek Septuagint with the Apocrypha included. Many of the Early Church Fathers quote from the Septuagint in a manner exactly parallel to their citations from canonical Scripture. For example, Clement of Alexandria, Polycarp, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Ciprian, and Augustine are among those who did so, and the earliest listing of New Testament books–the Muratorian Canon (c. AD 200)–lists the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon as one of the New Testament books! Several early synods in the West even declared the Apocrypha canonical. Churches within the Eastern Orthodox Communion have also done so in recent centuries.

“Early on, however, other churchmen such as Origen of Alexandria noted a difference between the Apocrypha and the Hebrew Scriptures. Cyril of Jerusalem and Jerome also drew a line of separation between the two, using the term Apocrypha for the first time in reference to these writings. To be sure, Jerome included them in his Latin translation of the Bible, the Vulgate, but advised that the Apocrypha should be read for edification, not for supporting church dogma.

“Clearly, then, the Early Church was of two minds on this issue: inclusionary–-as witnessed in the fact that the Apocrlpha were included in Codex Sinaiticus, one of the earliest and most authoritative Scriptures in book form–yet exclusionary as well. In the Medieval Church and beyond, however, the inclusionaries won the day. The Council of Trent, Roman Catholicism’s answer to the Reformation, actually anathematized those who did not credit the books of the Apocrypha as canonical. As this decision was confirmed by the Vatican Council of 1870, the Apocrypha remain canonical Scripture in Catholicism to the present day (never mind that the very man who gave the Roman Catholic church its official Latin Bible in the Vulgate, Jerome, did not regard the Apocrypha as canonical!).

“As in so many other areas, Martin Luther did something dramatic regarding the Apocrypha, and it was a solution that masterfully resolved much of the issue: he incorporated these writings in his celebrated German Bible, published in 1534, but prized them apart from their scattered placements in the Old Testament, and moved them as a group into a separate location between the Testaments.

“Emulating Luther, Myles Coverdale’s first authorized English translation of the Bible in 1535 separated the Apocrypha in a similar manner, as did the King James Version in 1611, the format that would command the future. If Protestant Bibles today include the Apocrypha, these writings usually appear as a group between the Testaments.

“Christendom, then, as in the Early Church, continues to have two minds regarding the Apocrypha: (1) these writings are regularly read and used in public worship as actual Scripture in great segments of Christendom, or (2) they are all but ignored by most Protestants today. But if that is the case, why should the latter read these “outside books”? Or take them seriously as “next to sacred Scripture” in terms of authority? Or even devote a volume like this to their translation, interpretation, and study?

“For many reasons, the Apocrypha remain very important to the Church, as these pages will show. Because these writings originated in a period between the Testaments in which the historical evidence is otherwise quite sparse, they help fill a significant gap in our knowledge of the past. But they also provide seminal concepts regarding the historical (even theological) future, as reflected in the teachings of such New Testament personalities as Paul, the apostles, and Jesus Himself. And because the Apocrypha interact with scriptural material throughout, they serve as a vital context for understanding not only the biblical world of their day but also that of the Early Church. Since many Church Fathers assumed that the Apocrypha had canonical authority, their contributions to the theology of Christendom can better be understood from reading the Apocrypha.

“Along with the larger issues surrounding the Apocrypha and their reception by Jews and Christians are more focused issues of scholarly concern such as chronology and interpretation of historical events such as the rabbinic decisions at Jamnia. The present volume raises or alludes to these issues and at times notes different scholarly opinions. No doubt these matters will continue to be discussed and investigated with the goal of resolving them in the clearest way. The current volume provides readers with an opportunity to learn about the issues and to join the discussion.”

(http://www.amazon.com/The-Apocrypha-Lutheran-Edition-Notes/dp/0758625472)

Nonetheless, the principle that “our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors” still stands.

God’s blessings.
Rick

Comment on Aquinas Quoting Augustine on Scripture Alone by brucknerfan

brucknerfan — Tue, 07 May 2013 05:05:15 +0000

What did Aquinas mean by “canonical books”? For that matter, what did Augustine mean? One would need to know this information to properly understand the implications of what Aquinas or Augustine wrote. I would assume that Aquinas accepted as “canonical” the Septuagint Old Testament with books which would now be labelled as “apocryphal,” and at the moment I am not sure what Augustine’s New Testament canon consisted of or if the 27-Book New Testament canon had been established by the time of Augustine.