Cyberstones-A Lutheran Blog

Comments...

• May 05, 2008 05:43:21 Re: Adultery and Fidelty Chrysostom via Esget - joel
  Assorted thoughts generated by this excellent post:
  
  "But adultery is always a matter of choice; no amount of lust, and no passion of love, can overwhelm a person's capacity to choose between fidelity and betrayal."
  
  Probably Chrysostom had in mind God's faithfulness in always providing a way of escape from temptation.
  
  Pr. Beisel, I think the Luther quote ends something like, "..but you can keep the birds from building nests in your hair."
  
  Regarding sinful recidivism, I often think of Clement of Alexandria's words: "The frequent asking of forgiveness, then, for those things in which we often transgress, is the semblance of repentance, not repentance itself" (Stromateis, bk. 11, ch. XIII).
  
  In the Lutheran churches I've attended, they don't teach much on sanctification and mortifying of the flesh. I've generally turned to Eastern sources and George MacDonald's works for help in this area.
  
  Speaking of MacDonald, I find the thought that God is good, truly wonderfully universally unquestionably effusively good, to be most effective in combatting and killing sin. I suppose it's the weakness of faith in God's goodness that allows sin to compete with righteousness in our lives.
  
• May 04, 2008 23:07:57 Re: Adultery and Fidelty Chrysostom via Esget - Greg
  These besetting sins involve addictions rather physical or psychological which limit the freedom of choice of the individual. They may very well hate the sin they do such as Paul in Romans 7. Perhaps this is the key to the mortal/venial distinction. Mortal sins are sins one does not hate/regret. Venial sins are sins one commits even when one hates the sin they are commiting. The drunkard, glution, porn addict, masturbater, anger prone may very much regret their sin but feel chained to it, may sin against their will. Mortal sin is wilful. Venial sin is sin against our own will.
• May 03, 2008 16:04:43 Re: Adultery and Fidelty Chrysostom via Esget - Pr. Lehmann
  Whenever I teach my people about moral and venial sin I get those "We ain't no steenkeen Catholics!" looks.
  • May 03, 2008 16:07:06 Re: Adultery and Fidelty Chrysostom via Esget - Petersen
    Whenever I teach my people about anything I get those "We ain't no steenkeen Catholics!" looks.
    • May 03, 2008 16:10:00 Re: Adultery and Fidelty Chrysostom via Esget - Pr. Lehmann
      :-)
      
      Point well taken.
      
      But it reminds me a bit of when Fenton told me that they only did incense at Zion 50 Sundays a year because every Sunday incense is "too Catholic."
• May 02, 2008 12:48:53 Re: Adultery and Fidelty Chrysostom via Esget - Pr. Lovett

  Quote:

  When one crosses the line from struggle against sin to choosing it, willing it, giving oneself over to it: one has crossed into faith-destroying mortal sin.

  Amen.
  
  I guess I was thinking of the man overcome by lust. Or doesn't St. Paul write, "The evil I do not want to do, that I keep on doing." In other words, commiting adultry - looking at a woman or man with lust - is not a choice. We are born adulterers (that, of course, is not to justffy it or lessen it's wickedness).
  
  I suppose what Chrysostom was speaking of is the man who is trying to justify his adultry. It is the justifying of sin that makes it mortal. Thus king David. He tried to justify his sin, cover it up, make it look okay or innocent. Or that he committed no sin. He committed mortal sin.
  
  What peeked my interest was the use of the phrases "always a choice" and "no amount of lust...can overwhelm a person's capacity to choose between fidelity and betrayal." If I look at woman with lust, I commit adultery, but that doesn't mean I chose to override my capacity to choose fidelity over betrayal. It is precisely my lack of such a capacity that affords sin to spring to life and kill me. No?
  • May 02, 2008 12:51:15 Re: Adultery and Fidelty Chrysostom via Esget - Pr. Lovett
    Dang it. This was supposed to go below Pr. Curtis' post. Sorry.
    • May 02, 2008 13:01:00 Re: Adultery and Fidelty Chrysostom via Esget - Pr. H. R. Curtis
      Luther in the Smalcald Articles uses David and Peter for his examples of mortal sin. Peter never "justified" his sin. So I don't think that's the key to understanding the distinction between mortal and venial. It's a sin that is chosen in this since: you look God in the eye and say, "I know this is wrong, but I don't give a damn, I'm doing it anyway." Or in the classical definition, which I think is in Chemnitz (or something close): a sin freely chosen against better knowledge. That kills faith.
      
      A better read on the topic than Walther's Thesis X cannot be found.
      
      +HRC
      • May 03, 2008 05:01:58 Re: Adultery and Fidelty Chrysostom via Esget - Pr. Lovett

        Quote:

        Luther in the Smalcald Articles uses David and Peter for his examples of mortal sin

        That's why I used David.
        
        What you say makes sense to me. So aslo does Dave's comment below about this being in regard to physical desire. It was just the "always a matter of choice" and the idea that lust is not able to overcome our desire to do the right thing, that didn't sit well with me. Anyway, thanks for your input and the references.
• May 02, 2008 11:02:10 Re: Adultery and Fidelty Chrysostom via Esget - Christopher Esget
  Thanks for the "prize" - I will look forward to enjoying that beer with you, and will happily pay!
• May 02, 2008 09:10:56 Re: Adultery and Fidelty Chrysostom via Esget - Pr. Lovett

  Quote:

  But adultery is always a matter of choice; no amount of lust, and no passion of love, can overwhelm a person's capacity to choose between fidelity and betrayal.

  Lust can't overcome our desire to do good and choose the moral high ground? It's not that I disagree with the sainted preacher (whose ability I lust after), but what about Romans 7? Or am I misunderstanding?
  • May 02, 2008 12:26:23 Re: Adultery and Fidelty Chrysostom via Esget - Petersen
    I think also that this is in regard to physical desire. The problem is not our physical desire but our mental/spiritual desires. No physical desire can truly overwhelm us. The problem is not that we are physically weak but that we are mentally/spiritually weak.
    • May 03, 2008 11:33:13 Re: Adultery and Fidelty Chrysostom via Esget - Beisel
      Luther did say something to the effect of: "You can't stop the birds from flying overhead, but you can keep them from crapping on you." (with regards to temptation I think). Maybe it's a little off topic though.
      • May 03, 2008 11:33:57 Re: Adultery and Fidelty Chrysostom via Esget - Beisel
        No wait, that was the more vulgar version. I think it is more like: "...but you don't have to let them roost on your shoulder."
  • May 02, 2008 12:16:06 Re: Adultery and Fidelty Chrysostom via Esget - Pr. H. R. Curtis
    But what does Paul actually say in Romans 7? "The good I want to do, no the evil I do not want to do, this I keep on doing." He's talking about the continual struggle with venial sin: the sin I don't want (that is, will. with the power of volition. the sin I don't choose, but that I struggle with in spite of myself). When one crosses the line from struggle against sin to choosing it, willing it, giving oneself over to it: one has crossed into faith-destroying mortal sin. See Smalcald Articles III.3.42-45, Walther Proper Distinction Thesis X, and the section on mortal and venial sin in Chemnitz' Enchiridion.
    
    +HRC
    • May 03, 2008 21:23:57 Re: Adultery and Fidelty Chrysostom via Esget - Karl Hess
      I tried to write a paper on the distinction between mortal and venial sin in Lutheran theology, but it wasn't very good because it seemed like there was some ambiguity in this. On the one hand, we have the examples of Peter and David. One sin--not a pattern of habitual sin--constituted a mortal fall. Also Chemnitz in the Loci talks about the progress of sin from thought to action and locates mortal sin at the action. He cites Genesis 4, where God says to Cain, "Sin is crouching at your door; its desire is for you, but you must master it." The idea is, when sin gets the upper hand so that you commit actual sin, you have fallen from grace.
      
      I think there is a pastoral difficulty with this that I have not resolved--perhaps someone here can help me. People have any number of actual sins that they fall into repeatedly--whether gluttony, swearing, pornography, masturbation, fits of rage, drunkenness. It seems like the definition of mortal sin I learned from Chemnitz (if I got it right), either puts a person who falls repeatedly (and mourns each fall) in a perpetual state of doubt regarding the genuineness of his or her faith in Christ, or puts them past hope as hardened, unrepentant sinners. In fact, that's kind of how Walther treats drunkards in Law and Gospel. He says, These people readily express sorrow and sometimes will even sober up for a couple of months, but you shouldn't think that they are actually repentant and living in a state of grace.
      
      On the contrary, it seems to me that if you demand that a drunkard (or a glutton) first change the sinful behavior, and then give them assurance of salvation, you ensure that they will remain as they are.
      
      Looking forward to someone solving this difficulty for me.
      • May 04, 2008 11:58:33 Re: Adultery and Fidelty Chrysostom via Esget - Pr. Lovett
        I have the same question, which is why I responded to this post in the first place.