This is the pertinent sentence in the article, which otherwise has no connection whatsoever to Matthew 28:19: "(Genesis 1:28) is never in tension with, or contradictory to, the command of the Great Commission. They proceed together, but when one is neglected, both suffer."
Who is promoting that tension or contradiction? I have literally never heard these two passages put in tension before. Is this a "straw man" argument, or are there people who are playing Matthew 28 against Genesis 1? Maybe Pastor Cain can flesh out his case more thoroughly; that would be helpful, at least to me.
It was said in writing, but we won't name the person because the point is not to take him to task, but rather to address a teaching deficiency, which was also echoed by several people responding to an article about fecundity in the LCMS.
Thanks. That helps. Even though LCMS worshipers skew to the grandparent age bracket, Genesis 1, as the author explains, is not abrogated. Nor should folks sit in the sanctuary and wait - be out and about with the Good News. That's always been my issue - we have a wonderfully clear doctrinal position that allows the primary relationship in life - between God and me/us - to be understood as completely initiated by God through Jesus and the power of the Spirit. It's a classic "both-and."
So true - you validate my point. Charlie Kirk is not a saint. Was he used by God? Perhaps. This doesn't make him a saint or a donkey. Sainted because... ??
This is the pertinent sentence in the article, which otherwise has no connection whatsoever to Matthew 28:19: "(Genesis 1:28) is never in tension with, or contradictory to, the command of the Great Commission. They proceed together, but when one is neglected, both suffer."
Who is promoting that tension or contradiction? I have literally never heard these two passages put in tension before. Is this a "straw man" argument, or are there people who are playing Matthew 28 against Genesis 1? Maybe Pastor Cain can flesh out his case more thoroughly; that would be helpful, at least to me.
Dave Benke
It was said in writing, but we won't name the person because the point is not to take him to task, but rather to address a teaching deficiency, which was also echoed by several people responding to an article about fecundity in the LCMS.
Thanks. That helps. Even though LCMS worshipers skew to the grandparent age bracket, Genesis 1, as the author explains, is not abrogated. Nor should folks sit in the sanctuary and wait - be out and about with the Good News. That's always been my issue - we have a wonderfully clear doctrinal position that allows the primary relationship in life - between God and me/us - to be understood as completely initiated by God through Jesus and the power of the Spirit. It's a classic "both-and."
Dave Benke
"...the sainted Charlie Kirk..." ?! Seriously... ? The Zionist did say some worthwhile things, but then even a broken clock is right twice a day.
The Lord God in Heaven once used a donkey to shame a prophet, and then had it recorded for all time.
So true - you validate my point. Charlie Kirk is not a saint. Was he used by God? Perhaps. This doesn't make him a saint or a donkey. Sainted because... ??
Sainted because he was and is a Christian.
A given, but context is poor - it elevates him which was clearly intentional.
What was he “intentionally” elevated to?
If anything, it is the reverse, particularly when most modern Christians view Matthew 28:19 as a call for foreign missions.