Log Out | Topics | Search

Archive through March 09, 2021 Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Luther Quest Discussion Group » General Discussions » 3 Cases of Conscience » Archive through March 09, 2021 « Previous Next »

Author Message

Posted on Monday, March 01, 2021 - 10:31 pm:

Steve Schmidt (Sschmidt) The long quote was to remind us of what Missouri theology once sounded like, and to show that the congregation does not give up any authority to the pastor. The pastor is called to exercise the
Senior Member keys, etc. publicly for the congregation, but they do not give up the authority themselves, they still retain it as individual Christians.
Username: Sschmidt

Post Number: 1407 So Paul is not talking about spiritual authority in general in 1 Timothy 2, since to do so is to void “All things are yours” in the process. Is he talking about temporal authority, then? Where do we learn
Registered: 3-2017 of Queen Candace or the Queen of Sheba? Since when do apostles make earthly laws? Or institute binding ceremonies?

Paul declares that he was appointed a herald, which the CSSB says is “one who with authority makes a public proclamation.” I.e. a pastor. “I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over
a man” means literally “I do not permit a woman to be a pastor.” Why not, Paul? Because “Adam was formed first” i.e. headship.

The CSSB also notes: “According to Lutheran tradition Paul did not allow a woman to be an official teacher in the assembled church. This is indicated by the added restriction concerning exercising
“authority over a man” (a male), i.e. functioning as an overseer.”
Posted on Monday, March 01, 2021 - 11:20 pm:

Juan Jeanniton To the Rev. Cascione (again):

(Casusconscientiae)
Junior Member "Paul says, “I do not permit a woman,” regardless of family ties. What part of this statement from Scripture don’t you understand? Casuistry does not negate the rule! The Sadducees tried to negate
Username: Casusconscientiae
the resurrection of the dead with casuistry." Does that mean that you are claiming that my real motive in formulating these 3 cases of conscience had been to nullify the divine order of creation just
Post Number: 33 like the REAL motive of the Sadducees in posing their case of conscience was to DENY the resurrection of the dead? If your intention was to make precisely such a claim about my real motives,
Registered: 2-2021 well then, you have committed a special kind of fallacy, called Bulverism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism:

quote:

Bulverism is a term for a rhetorical fallacy that combines circular reasoning with presumption or condescension. The method of Bulverism is to "assume that your opponent is
wrong, and explain his error." The Bulverist assumes a speaker's argument is invalid or false and then explains why the speaker came to make that mistake (even if the
opponents's claim is actually right) by attacking the speaker or the speaker's motive. The term Bulverism was coined by C. S. Lewis[1] to poke fun at a very serious error in
thinking that, he alleged, recurs often in a variety of religious, political, and philosophical debates.

Similar to Antony Flew's "subject/motive shift", Bulverism is a fallacy of irrelevance. One accuses an argument of being wrong on the basis of the arguer's identity or motive, but
these are strictly speaking irrelevant to the argument's validity or truth.

...

Source of the concept

Lewis wrote about this in a 1941 essay,[2][3] which was later expanded and published in 1944 in The Socratic Digest under the title "Bulverism".[4][3] This was reprinted both in
Undeceptions and the more recent anthology God in the Dock in 1970. He explains the origin of this term:[5]

You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his
attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to
invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five
when he heard his mother say to his father—who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third—"Oh you say that because you are a man."
"At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is
wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national
dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.

Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is "wishful thinking." You can never
come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my
figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can
be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of
the concealed wish will become relevant—but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all
thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first
find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.

— C. S. Lewis, Bulverism

Was it your intention to claim that my real motive was sinister - to undermine the divine order of creation? The truth is, my REAL and ONLY motive for writing up these 3 cases of conscience is to
truly know - with solid and irrefutable evidence from the Bible and Lutheran Confessions - whether it is the INDIVIDUAL or the FAMILY that is the basic and most specific possible unit of
representation in the voters' assembly of a local congregation.
Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2021 - 12:05 am:

Jojakim Dettmann Juan,

(Random_layman)
Senior Member You write about things working ex opere operato as if they always work due to things being divinely instituted.
Username: Random_layman

Post Number: 3873 Lutherans don't equate divine institution with such mechanistic, deterministic efficacy. Everything done with a divine institution only confers grace when it is received by faith. For example, if a
Registered: 5-2006 pastor forgives someone who is actually unrepentant, he or she does not receive the benefit of the absolution.

The reverse is also true: A pastor (WELS) of a congregation I was once a member of told me that he had wrongly excommunicated one of his members. Disturbed that he could not un-
excommunicate without losing his call or dividing the congregation, he didn't say anything to the congregation (except me) and instead personally recommended her as a membership prospect to
another Lutheran pastor who was outside of the WELS/ELS fellowship.

This reflects his understanding that although excommunicated, she was still a faithful Christian.

A phrase you've probably come across is "simul iustus et peccator". This understanding affects the collective entities too, not just individuals. So a calling body or committee may call the person
God desires for that role, or may fall short of that. Results may vary depending on the faithfulness and degree of sanctification of the calling committee.

In the WELS, it is understood that "Whatever is, is right"--that since whatever God ordains is always good, whatever happens must reflect God's ordination. This understanding can be taken to an
extreme degree which is unhealthy and reflects an ex opere operato type understanding. It is especially found in promotional and fundraising type materials, in phrases such as "Support God's
Kingdom... give now". (As if churchwork necessarily advances God's kingdom because it is churchly.)

On the other side, the ELS, CLC, and to a large degree also the LCMS do not adhere to "Whatever is, is right". Instead they apply the "What God ordains is always good" only to that which God
himself has ordained--instead of assuming that God ordains all that we see (which necessarily includes sin). Discerning this at times can be tricky and it is reasonable to sometimes withold
judgement to learn more about reflects "simul iustus" and what is "et peccator".

Hymn lyrics sung by these other denominations include:

"Mortal pride and earthly glory,

Sword and crown betray our trust;
Though with care and toil we build them,
Tow'r and temple fall to dust.
But God's pow'r,
Hour by hour,
Is my temple and my tow'r."

and

"Nor think amid the heat of trial

That God hath cast thee off unheard,
That he whose hopes meet no denial
Must surely be of God preferred;
Time passes and much change doth bring,
And sets a bound to everything

Neither of these hymn verses are found in the WELS hymnal; they would be considered problematic by some if they were. The first one depicts divinely instituted government betraying us and
churches falling to dust. The building is symbolic of the congregation behind it also falling to dust. The second one warns against equating success with God's favor and will, because things can
change. Both challenge "Whatever is, is right".

If you were writing on one of the WELS oriented facebook pages, maybe I could see some legitimacy in your label of "ex opere operato" because of this factor. Same if you were criticizing an
LCMS funding drive... but you are applying this even to Lutherans who operate in another way--one which is nuanced and incorporates tentative understandings.
Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2021 - 12:26 am:

Juan Jeanniton Mr. Dettmann, the burden of proof is still on Mr. Gorman to provide detailed, sound, and irrefutable proof from the Bible and Lutheran Confessions that even in the case in which we have a good-
(Casusconscientiae) willed woman who KNOWS that a certain course of action in certain matters that are adiaphora would be good for the Church and not contrary to the Bible and Lutheran Confessions (nor contrary
Junior Member to the divine order of creation of the sexes), and through her gentleness and influence, of course, with due respect to his prerogative of male headship as representative of her in the family,
Username: Casusconscientiae PRIVATELY persuades and petitions her husband, brother, father, son, etc. at home, through the mutual affection and love subsisting between them, that it would be good and expedient for the
Post Number: 34 Church to vote accordingly, yet even so, all THESE ties of family affection which might influence the said husband, brother, father, son, etc., to vote accordingly can NEVER make his mere SINGLE
Registered: 2-2021 vote in the voters' assembly truly representative of her in the voters' assembly. I am still waiting for his proof. When I used "ex opere operato", I meant "automatically without any further need for
external assistance".

Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2021 - 12:31 am:

Jojakim Dettmann Lutherans don't see congregational votes as working automatically without any further need for external assistance.
(Random_layman)
Senior Member Your overall position could be tweaked by getting rid of that part of your argument; it would make more sense that way, especially if after you are done with LutherQuest you decide to go and
Username: Random_layman present your ideas to those on Your Turn at alpb.org (which gets larger web traffic than LutherQuest).
Post Number: 3874
Registered: 5-2006

Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2021 - 12:50 am:

Juan Jeanniton I am still waiting for Mr. Gorman, or any other Confessional Lutheran, to prove a detailed, sound, and irrefutable proof from the Bible and Lutheran Confessions that even in the case in which we
(Casusconscientiae) have a good-willed woman who KNOWS that a certain course of action in certain matters that are adiaphora would be good for the Church and not contrary to the Bible and Lutheran Confessions
Junior Member (nor contrary to the divine order of creation of the sexes), and through her gentleness and influence, of course, with due respect to his prerogative of male headship as representative of her in the
Username: Casusconscientiae family, PRIVATELY persuades and petitions her husband, brother, father, son, etc. at home, through the mutual affection and love subsisting between them, that it would be good and expedient for
Post Number: 35 the Church to vote accordingly, yet even so, all THESE ties of family affection which might influence the said husband, brother, father, son, etc., to vote accordingly can NEVER make his mere
Registered: 2-2021 SINGLE vote in the voters' assembly truly representative of her in the voters' assembly.
Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2021 - 2:23 am:

Daniel Gorman (Heinrich) Juan Jeanniton: “I was talking about a good-willed woman who KNOWS that a certain course of action in certain matters that are adiaphora would be good for the Church and not contrary to the
Senior Member Bible and Lutheran Confessions (nor contrary to the divine order of creation of the sexes), and through her gentleness and influence, persuades and petitions her husband, brother, father, son, etc.,
Username: Heinrich that it would be good and expedient for the Church to vote accordingly.”
Post Number: 4472
Registered: 11-2004 So we’re talking about adiaphora? Like what color we’re going to paint the church? I reckon the voters could appoint all-female subcommittees to handle matters best left to the women of the
congregation.

Juan Jeanniton: “The burden of proof is still on YOU to show that even in the case in which we have a good-willed woman who KNOWS that a certain course of action in certain matters that are
adiaphora would be good for the Church and not contrary to the Bible and Lutheran Confessions (nor contrary to the divine order of creation of the sexes), and through her gentleness and
influence, of course, with due respect to his prerogative of male headship as representative of her in the family, persuades and petitions her husband, brother, father, son, etc., that it would be good
and expedient for the Church to vote accordingly, yet even so, all these ties of family affection which might influence the said husband, brother, father, son, etc., to vote accordingly can NEVER
make his mere SINGLE vote in the voters' assembly truly representative of her in the voters' assembly.”

I have no objection to women providing their unique input on matters of adiaphora. However, to avoid confusion, the non-religious adiaphora session should be completely separate from the
religious portion of the voters assembly.

Man is woman’s head. It’s not up to the “good-willed” woman to determine what constitutes adiaphora which she may persuade and petition and what is church doctrine which she may only ask
questions about. For example: she could ask her menfolk at home:: “Is painting the church blue adiaphora?”

Even in the case of adiaphora votes, the adult male voter is not representative of anyone but Christ (1 Cor 11:3).

Juan Jeanniton: “Here is the proof: every act of “influencing and PETITIONING their menfolk at home” IS an act of asking questions at home instead of haranguing them out in the public assembly
of the church. Paul the Apostle uses the word "CHURCH", "IN CHURCH", many times in 1 Corinthians 14, and twice in 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 and contrasts them with "at home", just like he
contrasts "at home" with "in church" in 1 Corinthians 11:17 and all the following verses. The point is, Paul is deliberately trying to make the point that whatever he is saying in 1 Corinthians 14:34/35
is limited to church meetings and does not apply in the private domestic sphere. Therefore female private petitioning even on church affairs IS licit. The only illicit thing is PUBLIC HARANGUING in
PUBLIC and CHURCH MEETINGS in which ADULT MALES are present. And THAT has been the TRADITIONAL interpretation of this verse of Scripture for over 2000 years!”

Untrue. Women speaking publicly in "Lutheran" churches is a very recent innovation condemned by scripture and the Lutheran Confessions: “Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should
publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.” AC XIV

I don’t see how 1 Cor 11:17 even relates to the topic of headship. Paul had finished his discussion of the order of creation and was moving on to another command: “Now in giving you this next
command, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse.” 1 Cor 11:17, EHV

In 1 Cor 14:33-35, EHV, (whoever split the bible into verses erred), Paul states that, to even be considered a church of the saints, a local congregation must forbid, not only public haranguing, but
every form of public speaking:

“As in all the churches of the saints, the women are to keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. Instead they are to be subordinate, as also the Law says. If they desire to
learn something, let them ask their own men at home, because it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.” 1 Cor 14:33-35, EHV

Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2021 - 10:31 am:

Juan Jeanniton To Daniel Gorman (yet again!!!!!):

(Casusconscientiae)
Junior Member You said:
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 36 quote:

Registered: 2-2021
So we’re talking about adiaphora? Like what color we’re going to paint the church? I reckon the voters could appoint all-female subcommittees to handle matters best left to the
women of the congregation.

Juan Jeanniton: “The burden of proof is still on YOU to show that even in the case in which we have a good-willed woman who KNOWS that a certain course of action in certain
matters that are adiaphora would be good for the Church and not contrary to the Bible and Lutheran Confessions (nor contrary to the divine order of creation of the sexes), and
through her gentleness and influence, of course, with due respect to his prerogative of male headship as representative of her in the family, persuades and petitions her husband,
brother, father, son, etc., that it would be good and expedient for the Church to vote accordingly, yet even so, all these ties of family affection which might influence the said
husband, brother, father, son, etc., to vote accordingly can NEVER make his mere SINGLE vote in the voters' assembly truly representative of her in the voters' assembly.”

I have no objection to women providing their unique input on matters of adiaphora. However, to avoid confusion, the non-religious adiaphora session should be completely
separate from the religious portion of the voters assembly.

Man is woman’s head. It’s not up to the “good-willed” woman to determine what constitutes adiaphora which she may persuade and petition and what is church doctrine which
she may only ask questions about. For example: she could ask her menfolk at home:: “Is painting the church blue adiaphora?”

Oh, so just as if liberty of conscience in finding out and discerning what is adiaphora and what is not had been the exclusive prerogative of the MALE sex??? And you STILL have NOT proven what
you NEED to prove. Instead you have used straw-man arguments to maliciously and slanderously misconstrue my motives. But I was not talking about matters which she through her own private
independent opinions determined are adiaphora. I am only talking about matters which all the men themselves already KNOW are adiaphora, irrespective of the wishes or opinions of the women
and children, and entirely PRIOR to anything the women and children might desire or think.

The burden of proof is still on YOU to show that even in the case in which we have a good-willed woman who KNOWS that a certain course of action in certain matters, which the MEN
THEMSELVES - irrespective of HER private opinions on the matter - already KNOW and have JUDGED FOR THEMSELVES are adiaphora, would be good for the Church and not contrary to the
Bible and Lutheran Confessions (nor contrary to the divine order of creation of the sexes), and through her gentleness and influence, of course, with due respect to his prerogative of male headship
as representative of her in the family, persuades and petitions her husband, brother, father, son, etc., that it would be good and expedient for the Church to vote accordingly, yet even so, all THESE
ties of family affection which might influence the said husband, brother, father, son, etc., to vote accordingly can NEVER make his mere SINGLE vote in the voters' assembly truly representative of
her in the voters' assembly. TO BE CONTINUED

Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2021 - 10:32 am:

Juan Jeanniton To Daniel Gorman (yet again!!!!!) (CONTINUED):

(Casusconscientiae)
Junior Member Next you say,
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 37 quote:

Registered: 2-2021
Juan Jeanniton: “Here is the proof: every act of “influencing and PETITIONING their menfolk at home” IS an act of asking questions at home instead of haranguing them out in
the public assembly of the church. Paul the Apostle uses the word "CHURCH", "IN CHURCH", many times in 1 Corinthians 14, and twice in 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 and contrasts
them with "at home", just like he contrasts "at home" with "in church" in 1 Corinthians 11:17 and all the following verses. The point is, Paul is deliberately trying to make the point
that whatever he is saying in 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 is limited to church meetings and does not apply in the private domestic sphere. Therefore female private petitioning even on
church affairs IS licit. The only illicit thing is PUBLIC HARANGUING in PUBLIC and CHURCH MEETINGS in which ADULT MALES are present. And THAT has been the
TRADITIONAL interpretation of this verse of Scripture for over 2000 years!”

Untrue. Women speaking publicly in "Lutheran" churches is a very recent innovation condemned by scripture and the Lutheran Confessions: “Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach
that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.” AC XIV

STRAW-MAN. I never contended even ONCE that women should be allowed to do what you all call "speaking publicly" in "Lutheran" Churches during the divine liturgy. On the contrary, I
SPECIFICALLY formulated ALL 3 of these cases of conscience in order to make the assumption that 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 and 1 Timothy 2:11/12 is still in full force today EXACTLY AS
WRITTEN!

Next you say,

quote:

I don’t see how 1 Cor 11:17 even relates to the topic of headship. Paul had finished his discussion of the order of creation and was moving on to another command: “Now in
giving you this next command, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse.” 1 Cor 11:17, EHV

STRAW-MAN. I brought up 1 Cor 11:17 and the rest of the chapter not because it has anything to do with male headship, but because it makes precisely the same contrast between the church
worship service and the domestic sphere that 1 Corinthians 14:35 does, therefore PROVING - or at least providing a strong presumptive evidence - that whatever Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians
14:34/35 is limited to church meetings and does not apply in the private domestic sphere. And that has been the traditional interpretation of this verse for the first 2000 years of Church history. The
burden of proof is on YOU to REFUTE this distinction. TO BE CONTINUED
Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2021 - 10:36 am:

Juan Jeanniton To Daniel Gorman (yet again!!!!!) (CONTINUED):

(Casusconscientiae)
Junior Member Next you say,
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 38 quote:

Registered: 2-2021
In 1 Cor 14:33-35, EHV, (whoever split the bible into verses erred), Paul states that, to even be considered a church of the saints, a local congregation must forbid, not only public
haranguing, but every form of public speaking:

“As in all the churches of the saints, the women are to keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. Instead they are to be subordinate, as also the Law says. If
they desire to learn something, let them ask their own men at home, because it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.” 1 Cor 14:33-35, EHV

STRAW-MAN ARGUMENT. You forget what I said in an earlier post. Here is what I myself said: "And by HARANGUING I only mean what is popularly called "speaking in public" or speaking loud
enough to address the whole congregation or any other public assembly as if one had been the sole speaker, as opposed to congregational singing and joining in vocally with the devotional
responses of the congregation. The N.T. Greek is a far more precise and punctilious language than the English. It has two words specifically suited to stress the act of public speaking as opposed
to congregational singing, devotional responses and private conversation: and those are the words AGOREUEIN and DEMEGOREIN. But St. Paul only uses the term LALEIN in 1 Corinthians
14:34/35 to name the action he forbids to women, and which in the English Bible is translated as SPEAK. LALEIN is more GENERIC than AGOREUEIN and DEMEGOREIN. Thus his prohibition is
not precise and SPECIFIC, but precise and GENERIC. This, too, ought to be taken into account." Yet you have deliberately IGNORED this part of the earlier post of mine. Again, what you all call
"public speaking" is the act of publicly addressing an assembly or speaking loud enough to address the whole congregation or any other public assembly as if one had been the sole speaker, as
opposed to congregational singing and joining in vocally with the devotional responses of the congregation. That is ALL that I meant when I used the term HARANGUING. All I wanted to do was
distinguish between the act of publicly addressing an assembly or speaking loud enough to address the whole congregation or any other public assembly as if one had been the sole speaker and
the act of joining in the congregational singing and devotional responses of the congregation, or for example, reciting prescribed devotional responses as candidates or sponsors for baptism, or
reciting marriage vows as a bride - now is any of these devotional/congregational responses, viz. congregational singing, singing in church choirs, participating vocally and audibly in the devotional
responses, reciting prescribed devotional responses as candidates or sponsors for baptism, or reciting marriage vows as a bride, an act of KEEPING SILENCE in church? When the bride gives her
marriage vows vocally and loud enough for the congregation in the marriage service to hear - and the service takes place in church, is that an act of KEEPING SILENCE in church? If a godmother
recites the vows of baptism along with the godfather for the infant to be baptized, are these godmothers and godfathers thereby KEEPING SILENCE in church? I leave that to your conscience.

For the Apostle's precept to be truly specific, it must not just specify ONE particular case: this very specification would also have to be the DECISIVE and DEFINITIVE PROOF that that case alone
is intended, and all other cases at the same level of specificity are exempted from the prohibition. It would need to be precise enough to distinguish between what is called PUBLIC speaking (i.e.
publicly addressing the assembly or talking loud and individually enough to publicly address the assembly) and merely taking part in the congregational singing and congregational liturgical
responses, and such liturgical responses as may be prescribed by a Liturgy book for Candidates in Baptism, Matrimony, Confirmation, etc, just as if neither the act of taking part in the
congregational singing, nor congregational liturgical responses, nor such liturgical responses as may be prescribed by a Liturgy book for Candidates in Baptism, Matrimony, Confirmation, etc, had
been a form of LALEIN. Paul the Apostle could have easily used the MORE SPECIFIC word AGOREUO or else the MORE SPECIFIC term DEMEGOREUO so that nobody could mistake it for
forbidding any form of women's vocal participation in the Liturgy except PUBLICLY ADDRESSING the ASSEMBLY (includes of course, PREACHING, TEACHING, EXHORTATION, LITURGICALLY
READING THE SCRIPTURE, LEADING IN PUBLIC PRAYER, PROPHESYING, SPEAKING IN TONGUES, EXORCISM, ...) and/or putting forth questions LOUD ENOUGH TO PUBLICLY
ADDRESS the ASSEMBLY: for the Greek is a FAR MORE PRECISE language than the English. But St. Paul uses the GENERIC word LALEIN to name the very act FORBIDDEN in church!

You have taken it upon yourself to seize upon certain key words and phrases which I used and which CAN have multiple meanings, like HARANGUE for example, and 'good-willed woman who
KNOWS that a certain course of action in certain matters that are adiaphora', as words you could most expediently and conveniently misconstrue as a pretext for slanderously and maliciously
charging me with evil and sinister motives.

And once again, I am STILL waiting for your proof from the Bible and Lutheran Confessions that even in the case in which we have a good-willed woman who KNOWS that a certain course of
action in certain matters, which the MEN THEMSELVES - irrespective of HER private opinions on the matter - already KNOW and have JUDGED FOR THEMSELVES are adiaphora, would be
good for the Church, and which the MEN THEMSELVES already KNOW is not contrary to the Bible and Lutheran Confessions (nor contrary to the divine order of creation of the sexes), and
through her gentleness and influence, of course, with due respect to his prerogative of male headship as representative of her in the family, persuades and petitions her husband, brother, father,
son, etc., that it would be good and expedient for the Church to vote accordingly, yet even so, all THESE ties of family affection which might influence the said husband, brother, father, son, etc., to
vote accordingly can NEVER make his mere SINGLE vote in the voters' assembly truly representative of her in the voters' assembly. FINIS

Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2021 - 11:28 am:

Juan Jeanniton To the Rev. Cascione, Mr. Gorman, Mr. Dettmann, et al.,
(Casusconscientiae)
Junior Member And just in case any of you have forgotten: I said in my 38th post, that:
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 39 quote:

Registered: 2-2021
For the Apostle's precept to be truly specific, it must not just specify ONE particular case: this very specification would also have to be the DECISIVE and DEFINITIVE PROOF
that that case alone is intended, and all other cases at the same level of specificity are exempted from the prohibition. It would need to be precise enough to distinguish between
what is called PUBLIC speaking (i.e. publicly addressing the assembly or talking loud and individually enough to publicly address the assembly) and merely taking part in the
congregational singing and congregational liturgical responses, and such liturgical responses as may be prescribed by a Liturgy book for Candidates in Baptism, Matrimony,
Confirmation, etc, just as if neither the act of taking part in the congregational singing, nor congregational liturgical responses, nor such liturgical responses as may be prescribed
by a Liturgy book for Candidates in Baptism, Matrimony, Confirmation, etc, had been a form of LALEIN. Paul the Apostle could have easily used the MORE SPECIFIC word
AGOREUO or else the MORE SPECIFIC term DEMEGOREUO so that nobody could mistake it for forbidding any form of women's vocal participation in the Liturgy except
PUBLICLY ADDRESSING the ASSEMBLY (includes of course, PREACHING, TEACHING, EXHORTATION, LITURGICALLY READING THE SCRIPTURE, LEADING IN PUBLIC
PRAYER, PROPHESYING, SPEAKING IN TONGUES, EXORCISM, ...) and/or putting forth questions LOUD ENOUGH TO PUBLICLY ADDRESS the ASSEMBLY: for the Greek
is a FAR MORE PRECISE language than the English. But St. Paul uses the GENERIC word LALEIN to name the very act FORBIDDEN in church!

And I am STILL waiting for a sound and irrefutable proof from the Bible and Lutheran Confessions that even in the case in which we have a good-willed woman who KNOWS that a certain course
of action in certain matters, which the MEN THEMSELVES - irrespective of HER private opinions on the matter - already KNOW and have JUDGED FOR THEMSELVES are adiaphora, would be
good for the Church, and which the MEN THEMSELVES already KNOW is not contrary to the Bible and Lutheran Confessions (nor contrary to the divine order of creation of the sexes), and
through her gentleness and influence, of course, with due respect to his prerogative of male headship as representative of her in the family, persuades and petitions her husband, brother, father,
son, etc., that it would be good and expedient for the Church to vote accordingly, yet even so, all THESE ties of family affection which might influence the said husband, brother, father, son, etc., to
vote accordingly can NEVER make his mere SINGLE vote in the voters' assembly truly representative of her in the voters' assembly.
Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2021 - 12:20 pm:

Pastor Cascione (Cardinal) Daniel Gorman:

Intermediate Member
Username: Cardinal I said name on the call list, not her called pastor.
Post Number: 429
Registered: 11-2004

Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2021 - 1:27 pm:

Pastor Cascione (Cardinal) Juan Jeanniton

Intermediate Member
Username: Cardinal My entire approach to Voters' Assemblies was to have a forum for legitimate congregational agreement on doctrine without District interference, women and men arguing with each other in church
Post Number: 430 meetings, and women not screaming at me. In my Lakewood, Ohio, congregation the retired minister sent his wife and 20 plus women friends to scream at me in the Voters' Assembly. He was a
Registered: 11-2004 total Seminex supporter, who sent out letters to the entire congregation as to why I should be removed from the ministry one week before I was installed and two weeks after I was installed.

I was never a bylaw/regulation guy. My congregations were almost all union works. At Redeemer Lutheran Church in St. Clair Shores, with more than 400 members, there were 12 college
graduates including me and my wife. My problem was not to have them the view Voters' Assembly as a union hall meeting. One of our members was the UAW-headquarters janitor.

While I patted the members on the head for following the Catechism, I spent a lot of time chewing up corrupt district and synodical officials, who have succeeded in destroying the LCMS. God can
do anything, but the LCMS will not survive. In a recent video I heard the new president of Concordia Chicago give an official statement on doctrinal agreement with the LCMS and then say that their
university was not a Bible College. You can bet on that. He is another LCMS gutless wimp. My alma mater Concordia, Bronxville (67) just closed in the middle of a Metro area with 21 million
people, after decades of mismanagement, synodical and district corruption, and abandonment of the Scriptures. No one did anything to stop it. They have no explanations to justify their existence
in the biggest opportunity the LCMS will ever had. The LCMS seminaries are in collapse. They have no vision or plan for the future, when a turnaround is readily at hand.

Juan, if you spoke to the members of my congregation the way that you write on Luther Quest, you wouldn’t last three months at my last congregation. They began measures to remove the pastor
who followed me one month after his installation. I was 2,400 miles away in Arizona. They all know the MAN is out to get them. Either you fight to protect them from the MAN, or you are the MAN.

Their promise not to have woman suffrage at Redeemer Lutheran Church in St. Clair Shores was the reason I took their Call in 1990. I spent a lot of time keeping it out of Redeemer. This is one of
the reasons I invented Luther Quest. Rather than fighting with me, the congregation joined my crusade against the MAN.

If you do not speak about the Voters' Assembly in terms of love and service, what is the point?

Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2021 - 1:39 pm:

Daniel Gorman (Heinrich) Pastor Cascione: "I said name on the call list, not her called pastor."
Senior Member
Username: Heinrich
You wrote: "Walther stated that women could object to any name on a Call List. He was not going to allow the Order of Creation to nullify the Priesthood of all Believers. A woman should not have
Post Number: 4473 to sit and listen to a pastor preach and teach for God knows how many years with no voice in the matter."
Registered: 11-2004
Women have no authority to object to names on a call list (Order of Creation). Women do have the authority to flee a false teacher (Priesthood of all Believers).

I probably shouldn't have written "She may walk out of the new pastor's ordination/installation service never to return." I reject the Waltherian view that the Voter's Assembly calls pastors. Only
congregations in public session have the authority to call, elect, and ordain (Of the Power and Jurisdiction of Bishops, 67). Technically, he was not a new pastor until after she left. Only the was the
call was completed when the election became unanimous. He was never her called pastor.
Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2021 - 2:07 pm:

Juan Jeanniton To Rev. Cascione:

(Casusconscientiae)
Junior Member "My entire approach to Voters' Assemblies was to have a forum for legitimate congregational agreement on doctrine without District interference, women and men arguing with each other in church
Username: Casusconscientiae
meetings, and women not screaming at me. In my Lakewood, Ohio, congregation the retired minister sent his wife and 20 plus women friends to scream at me in the Voters' Assembly. He was a
Post Number: 41 total Seminex supporter, who sent out letters to the entire congregation as to why I should be removed from the ministry one week before I was installed and two weeks after I was installed." But
Registered: 2-2021 the question of whether or not it is lawful for women even to ATTEND voters' assemblies at all (let alone argue publically and vocally with men there, and publicly address such assemblies in an
audible voice) is not the point of my 3 cases of conscience. I formulated all 3 cases of conscience SPECIFICALLY to assume that C. F. W. Walther's doctrine of the supremacy of the voters'
assembly is the only true polity which agrees with the teachings of the Bible and Lutheran Confessions, and that 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 and 1 Timothy 2:11/12 are binding today EXACTLY as
written. I keep having to remind you and all of your fellow forum members of this every single time. I want you to read the 5 foundational assumptions I have made in my new thread, Women in
Church Music. They are as follows:

1: That 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 and 1 Timothy 2:11/12 are still in full force today exactly as written and exactly as it reads at face-value; and that it absolutely forbids women to PUBLICLY
ADDRESS the ASSEMBLY (includes of course, PREACHING, TEACHING, EXHORTATION, LITURGICALLY READING THE SCRIPTURE, LEADING IN PUBLIC PRAYER, PROPHESYING,
SPEAKING IN TONGUES, EXORCISM, ...) and/or put forth questions in a voice LOUD and PUBLIC ENOUGH TO PUBLICLY ADDRESS the ASSEMBLY; and that this precept is a universal and
perpetual divine law;

2: That neither CONGREGATIONAL SINGING nor DEVOTIONAL RESPONSES are included in the prohibition;

3: That the REASONS for these prohibitions are universal and of natural moral equity, based on the divine order of creation of the sexes, according to which, the man is the head of the woman; and
that this divine order of creation of the sexes is part and parcel of the divinely prescribed perpetual and universal natural law of mankind;

4: That the Lutheran Confessions of Faith are to be subscribed according to a quia and not merely a quatenus sense, or else one cannot be Lutheran;

5: That C. F. W. Walther's doctrine of the supremacy of the voters' assembly within the local congregation is the ONLY church polity which agrees with the teachings of the Bible and Lutheran
Confessions on church government.

Then you say, "If you do not speak about the Voters' Assembly in terms of love and service, what is the point?" The fact is, C. F. W. Walther did not consider the Voters' Assembly MERELY as
another form of love and service, he specifically said the voters' assembly is the supreme authority in the congregation in all matters that are adiaphora. See:
http://www.lutherquest.org/walther/articles/jmc00056.htm in which you write "The Voters' Assembly Is Invested With Authority from God"! See also
http://www.lutherquest.org/walther/articles/-400/jmc00051.htm. Also, http://www.lutherquest.org/walther/articles/jmc00203.htm. No wonder that women and children are ineligible to vote. Even if
they had never been publicly addressing the voters' assembly in order to voice an opinion, or make petitions or inquiries there, CFW Walther still would NEVER allow women to vote there! CFW
Walther (and Carl Vehse) understood perfectly well (far better than much of the LC-MS nowadays) that the Voter's Assembly is the supreme authoritative body of the local congregation provided
they do not debate or change or contradict or transgress against the doctrines already absolutely decided in the Bible and Lutheran Confessions. I never contended that women should be allowed
to vote in the voters' assembly. I would gladly offer 500 trillion DOLLARS or more if I ever had that much money to give, to anyone on this web forum who can find or show me just ONE SINGLE
instance where I ever contended in any of my posts on this thread, that women should be allowed to vote in the voters' assembly or address such an assembly publicly and vocally, or publicly
address the assembly at Divine Worship in the Formal Worship Service, or teach or preach or usurp authority over men in church, or advocated any of the agendas of radical feminism!
Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2021 - 2:17 pm:

Daniel Gorman (Heinrich) Juan Jeanniton: “Oh, so just as if liberty of conscience in finding out and discerning what is adiaphora and what is not had been the exclusive prerogative of the MALE sex??? And you STILL have
Senior Member NOT proven what you NEED to prove. Instead you have used straw-man arguments to maliciously and slanderously misconstrue my motives. But I was not talking about matters which she through
Username: Heinrich her own private independent opinions determined are adiaphora. I am only talking about matters which all the men themselves already KNOW are adiaphora, irrespective of the wishes or opinions
Post Number: 4474 of the women and children, and entirely PRIOR to anything the women and children might desire or think.”
Registered: 11-2004
Before I respond, you should consider your failure to comply with Lutherquest Guideline 6. Personnel attacks and unfounded accusations are not permitted.

You have falsely accused me of using “straw-man arguments to maliciously and slanderously misconstrue” your motives. Will you apologize to this group for your breach of list etiquette?
Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2021 - 2:33 pm:

Pastor Cascione (Cardinal) Juan Jeanniton

Intermediate Member
Username: Cardinal The principle and the practice are two different things. The practice is love and service!
Post Number: 433
Registered: 11-2004 Yes, the Voters' Assembly is invested with authority from God, but you have to tell the voter in the meeting why he is there and what he is supposed to do. Authority is one thing but what to do with
the authority is quite another.

I never said what you intended. From your writing, I'm not sure what you intend.

If the practice of Voters' Assemblies is not love and service, it doesn't belong in the church and neither do the clergy. I'm more interested in theology than ontology. Ontology is not church practice.
Theology is believe/do.

Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2021 - 2:38 pm:

Juan Jeanniton Mr. Gorman,

(Casusconscientiae)
Junior Member quote:
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 42 Before I respond, you should consider your failure to comply with Lutherquest Guideline 6. Personnel attacks and unfounded accusations are not permitted.
Registered: 2-2021
You have falsely accused me of using “straw-man arguments to maliciously and slanderously misconstrue” your motives. Will you apologize to this group for your breach of list
etiquette?

Yes. I apologize for any personal attacks and unfounded accusations I have made so far in my warm and earnest and solicitous zeal and restless curiosity for the truth on the matter of whether
according to the Bible and Lutheran Confessions, the basic and irreducible unit of representation of the voters' assembly is the individual or the family; and more particularly, the true answer
according to the Bible and Lutheran Confessions to the following question: In the case wherein, a certain course of action in certain matters, which the MEN THEMSELVES - irrespective of HER
private opinions on the matter - already KNOW and have JUDGED FOR THEMSELVES are adiaphora, and not contrary to the Bible and Lutheran Confessions (nor contrary to the divine order of
creation of the sexes), is known by some good-willed woman to be something that would be good and beneficial for the Church in the circumstances at that moment, and through her gentleness
and influence, of course, with due respect to his prerogative of male headship as representative of her in the family, persuades and petitions her husband, brother, father, son, etc., that it would be
good and expedient for the Church to vote accordingly; Can all THESE ties of family affection which might influence the said husband, brother, father, son, etc., to vote accordingly NOW in that
special case make his mere SINGLE vote in the voters' assembly truly representative of her in the voters' assembly? which is all I wanted to know.

Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2021 - 2:47 pm:

Juan Jeanniton To the Rev. Cascione:

(Casusconscientiae)
Junior Member You said,
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 43 quote:

Registered: 2-2021
Juan Jeanniton

The principle and the practice are two different things. The practice is love and service!

Yes, the Voters' Assembly is invested with authority from God, but you have to tell the voter in the meeting why he is there and what he is supposed to do. Authority is one thing
but what to do with the authority is quite another.

I never said what you intended. From your writing, I'm not sure what you intend.

If the practice of Voters' Assemblies is not love and service, it doesn't belong in the church and neither do the clergy. I'm more interested in theology than ontology. Ontology is
not church practice. Theology is believe/do.

I never denied that the voters' assemblies are to be carried out in a spirit of love and service. In fact, I believe that the voters' assemblies are to be carried out with love and service (as opposed, for
example, to a certain election - in the latter half of the 4th century AD - for the office of the Bishop of Rome between Ursinus and Damasus which ended up in a fierce brawl which left 137 persons
dead). But that doesn't negate the fact that C F W Walther said that the voters' assembly has supreme authority over the local congregation. See http://www.lutherquest.org/walther/articles/jmc000
56.htm, http://www.lutherquest.org/walther/articles/-400/j mc00051.htm, http://www.lutherquest.org/walther/articles/jmc002 03.htm. Again, according to the teachings of C F W Walther, and the
historical DOCTRINES - as well as practice - of the Missouri Synod (ever before that fateful day in 1969 when women were given the congregational vote) even if none of the women had been
addressing the assembly or speaking out loud there, it would still not have been lawful for women to vote, not even by a mere written ballot in the voter's assembly of the local congregation.
Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2021 - 11:18 am:

Daniel Gorman (Heinrich) Juan Jeanniton: “ All I wanted to do was distinguish between the act of publicly addressing an assembly or speaking loud enough to address the whole congregation or any other public assembly
Senior Member as if one had been the sole speaker and the act of joining in the congregational singing and devotional responses of the congregation, or for example, reciting prescribed devotional responses as
Username: Heinrich
candidates or sponsors for baptism, or reciting marriage vows as a bride - now is any of these devotional/congregational responses, viz. congregational singing, singing in church choirs,
Post Number: 4477 participating vocally and audibly in the devotional responses, reciting prescribed devotional responses as candidates or sponsors for baptism, or reciting marriage vows as a bride, an act of
Registered: 11-2004 KEEPING SILENCE in church? When the bride gives her marriage vows vocally and loud enough for the congregation in the marriage service to hear - and the service takes place in church, is that
an act of KEEPING SILENCE in church? If a godmother recites the vows of baptism along with the godfather for the infant to be baptized, are these godmothers and godfathers thereby KEEPING
SILENCE in church? I leave that to your conscience.”

I have discussed some of the unique circumstances you describe in past threads.

Juan Jeanniton: “For the Apostle's precept to be truly specific, it must not just specify ONE particular case: this very specification would also have to be the DECISIVE and DEFINITIVE PROOF
that that case alone is intended, and all other cases at the same level of specificity are exempted from the prohibition. It would need to be precise enough to distinguish between what is called
PUBLIC speaking (i.e. publicly addressing the assembly or talking loud and individually enough to publicly address the assembly) and merely taking part in the congregational singing and
congregational liturgical responses, and such liturgical responses as may be prescribed by a Liturgy book for Candidates in Baptism, Matrimony, Confirmation, etc, just as if neither the act of taking
part in the congregational singing, nor congregational liturgical responses, nor such liturgical responses as may be prescribed by a Liturgy book for Candidates in Baptism, Matrimony, Confirmation,
etc, had been a form of LALEIN. Paul the Apostle could have easily used the MORE SPECIFIC word AGOREUO or else the MORE SPECIFIC term DEMEGOREUO so that nobody could mistake
it for forbidding any form of women's vocal participation in the Liturgy except PUBLICLY ADDRESSING the ASSEMBLY (includes of course, PREACHING, TEACHING, EXHORTATION,
LITURGICALLY READING THE SCRIPTURE, LEADING IN PUBLIC PRAYER, PROPHESYING, SPEAKING IN TONGUES, EXORCISM, ...) and/or putting forth questions LOUD ENOUGH TO
PUBLICLY ADDRESS the ASSEMBLY: for the Greek is a FAR MORE PRECISE language than the English. But St. Paul uses the GENERIC word LALEIN to name the very act FORBIDDEN in
church!"

It's your thread. You may discuss any of these unique circumstances in greater detail here. Or you could maintain a narrower focus. I see you have started another thread specifically on “Women in
Church Music” http://www.lutherquest.org/cgi-bin/discus40/show.c gi?tpc=13&post=310971#POST310971

Juan Jeanniton: “You have taken it upon yourself to seize upon certain key words and phrases which I used and which CAN have multiple meanings, like HARANGUE for example, and 'good-willed
woman who KNOWS that a certain course of action in certain matters that are adiaphora. . .”

A good-willed woman may know that something is adiaphora. She may leave the church because the church is imposing a new Mosaic law (AC, XXVIII, 39-41). However, as a member of the
church, her ability to voice her objection is circumscribed by 1 Cor 11:3; 1 Cor 14:33-35; and 1 Tim 2:11-14. http://www.lutherquest.org/cgi-bin/discus40/show.c gi?
tpc=13&post=310973#POST310973

Juan Jeanniton: “Yes. I apologize for any personal attacks and unfounded accusations I have made so far in my warm and earnest and solicitous zeal and restless curiosity for the truth on the
matter of whether according to the Bible and Lutheran Confessions, the basic and irreducible unit of representation of the voters' assembly is the individual or the family; and more particularly, the
true answer according to the Bible and Lutheran Confessions to the following question: In the case wherein, a certain course of action in certain matters, which the MEN THEMSELVES -
irrespective of HER private opinions on the matter - already KNOW and have JUDGED FOR THEMSELVES are adiaphora, and not contrary to the Bible and Lutheran Confessions (nor contrary to
the divine order of creation of the sexes), is known by some good-willed woman to be something that would be good and beneficial for the Church in the circumstances at that moment, and through
her gentleness and influence, of course, with due respect to his prerogative of male headship as representative of her in the family, persuades and petitions her husband, brother, father, son, etc.,
that it would be good and expedient for the Church to vote accordingly; Can all THESE ties of family affection which might influence the said husband, brother, father, son, etc., to vote accordingly
NOW in that special case make his mere SINGLE vote in the voters' assembly truly representative of her in the voters' assembly? which is all I wanted to know.

I accept your apology. I admire your passion for biblical inquiry. Honoring the LQ guidelines keeps us all focused on biblical inquiry.

And the answer to your biblical inquiry: Every vote that every adult voter makes is representative of Christ alone. “Christ is the head of every man” 1 Cor 11:3, EHV

The Church of Jesus Christ is a kingdom not a secular republic. Every churchly act of every member; whether man, woman, or child; should reflect, not their own fleshly will, but the will of their
Almighty Lord and God. “My kingdom is not of this world” John 18:37, EHV “Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” John 20:28, EHV
Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2021 - 11:40 am:

Juan Jeanniton To Mr. Gorman:

(Casusconscientiae)
Junior Member You said,
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 49 quote:

Registered: 2-2021
A good-willed woman may know that something is adiaphora. She may leave the church because the church is imposing a new Mosaic law (AC, XXVIII, 39-41). However, as a
member of the church, her ability to voice her objection is circumscribed by 1 Cor 11:3; 1 Cor 14:33-35; and 1 Tim 2:11-14. http://www.lutherquest.org/cgi-bin/discus40/show.c gi?
tpc=13&post=310973#POST310973

However, there is something we should all remember. The only limitation 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 (assuming that it is in full force exactly as written at face-value) imposes in this respect is that the
women should not publicly, audibly, and vocally voice the objection in the public assembly of the church meeting for divine worship or a voters' assembly in a voice loud enough for a public
assembly to hear. However, there is nothing to prevent her from merely writing her objections in a written letter to the pastor and elders of the local congregation, provided again, that she does not
attempt to publicly, audibly, and vocally voice it orally to the whole congregation in a public church assembly, and also provided that the letter shows a due respect for the authority of the voters'
assembly, and of the pastors and elders of the local congregation, and shows no attempt to usurp authority over the men of that local congregation. Again, I NEVER POSED ANY OF THESE 3
CASES OF CONSCIENCE WITH THE INTENTION OF PLEADING AND CONTENDING THAT WOMEN SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PUBLICLY ADDRESS THE CHURCH ASSEMBLIES IN
PUBLIC WORSHIP OR IN THE VOTERS' ASSEMBLY - BUT ONLY TO FIND OUT, ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE & LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS, WHETHER THE UNIT OF REPRESENTATION
IN THE VOTERS' ASSEMBLY IS THE FAMILY OR THE HUMAN INDIVIDUAL!!

Again, would 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 forbid the bride from reciting her marriage vows vocally and loud enough for the congregation in the marriage service to hear - KNOWING that the service
takes place in church and in a PUBLIC assembly that is ASSEMBLED there??? If a godmother recites the vows of baptism along with the godfather for the infant to be baptized, would that TOO be
forbidden by 1 Corinthians 14:34/35? I pose these questions not to seek an occasion to declare 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 null and void or evade its obvious meaning, but because I am concerned
that lest those Lutheran Churches who allow, for example, brides to recite marriage vows vocally and audibly in a public church assembly in the marriage service or godmothers to recite the vows
of baptism along with the godfather for the infant to be baptized should fall ipso facto under the same condemnation as verily as if they allowed women to publically address the assembly in
Church!
Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2021 - 6:36 pm:

Juan Jeanniton To Mr. Gorman -

(Casusconscientiae)
Member And also as to your comment that "as a member of the church, her ability to voice her objection is circumscribed by 1 Cor 11:3; 1 Cor 14:33-35; and 1 Tim 2:11-14", that is entirely irrelevant to the
Username: Casusconscientiae
point I am trying to make in my 3 cases of conscience (and anyhow all 3 cases were specifically formulated to make the assumption that these 3 verses of the Bible apply today EXACTLY AS
Post Number: 54 WRITTEN), and therefore is not a sufficient answer to my question I posed in http://www.lutherquest.org/cgi-bin/discus40/show.cgi?tpc=13&post=310967#POST310967.
Registered: 2-2021

Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2021 - 1:20 am:

Daniel Gorman (Heinrich) Juan Jeanniton: "However, there is something we should all remember. The only limitation 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 (assuming that it is in full force exactly as written at face-value) imposes in this
Senior Member respect is that the women should not publicly, audibly, and vocally voice the objection in the public assembly of the church meeting for divine worship or a voters' assembly in a voice loud enough
Username: Heinrich
for a public assembly to hear. However, there is nothing to prevent her from merely writing her objections in a written letter to the pastor and elders of the local congregation, provided again, that
Post Number: 4479 she does not attempt to publicly, audibly, and vocally voice it orally to the whole congregation in a public church assembly, and also provided that the letter shows a due respect for the authority of
Registered: 11-2004 the voters' assembly, and of the pastors and elders of the local congregation, and shows no attempt to usurp authority over the men of that local congregation. Again, I NEVER POSED ANY OF
THESE 3 CASES OF CONSCIENCE WITH THE INTENTION OF PLEADING AND CONTENDING THAT WOMEN SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PUBLICLY ADDRESS THE CHURCH
ASSEMBLIES IN PUBLIC WORSHIP OR IN THE VOTERS' ASSEMBLY - BUT ONLY TO FIND OUT, ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE & LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS, WHETHER THE UNIT OF
REPRESENTATION IN THE VOTERS' ASSEMBLY IS THE FAMILY OR THE HUMAN INDIVIDUAL!!"

Asked and answered. The unit of representation in the voters’ assembly is Lord Christ, the head of every man, perfect God and perfect man.

Juan Jeanniton: "Again, would 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 forbid the bride from reciting her marriage vows vocally and loud enough for the congregation in the marriage service to hear - KNOWING that
the service takes place in church and in a PUBLIC assembly that is ASSEMBLED there??? If a godmother recites the vows baptism along with the godfather for the infant to be baptized, would that
TOO be forbidden by 1 Corinthians 14:34/35? I pose these questions not to seek an occasion to declare 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 null and void or evade its obvious meaning, but because I am
concerned that lest those Lutheran Churches who allow, for example, brides to recite marriage vows vocally and audibly in a public church assembly in the marriage service or godmothers to recite
the vows of baptism along with the godfather for the infant to be baptized should fall ipso facto under the same condemnation as verily as if they allowed women to publically address the assembly
in Church!"

There are several rites (e.g., matrimony and confirmation) and the sacrament of baptism where women undertake public commitments and/or testaments regarding their personal faith. The
liturgical necessity of female speech, if any, should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Juan Jeanniton: "And also as to your comment that "as a member of the church, her ability to voice her objection is circumscribed by 1 Cor 11:3; 1 Cor 14:33-35; and 1 Tim 2:11-14", that is entirely
irrelevant to the point I am trying to make in my 3 cases of conscience (and anyhow all 3 ca\s were specifically formulated to make the assumption that these 3 verses of the Bible apply today
EXACTLY AS WRITTEN), and therefore is not a sufficient answer to my question I posed in http://www.lutherquest.org/cgi-bin/discus40/show.c gi?tpc=13&post=310967#POST310967.

Your cases are irrelevant. Voters don’t represent the women of the congregation, the men, or even themselves. Voters represent Christ who is their head (1 Cor 11:3).
Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2021 - 9:25 am:

Pastor Cascione (Cardinal) b/{To all those who posted on this thread:}
Intermediate Member Thank you for the conversation. I have to leave the conversation here and go on a two-week trip from Tucson, to Minneapolis, Mayville WI, New Orleans, Ocean Springs MS, and Destin FL, to see
Username: Cardinal
family and sell paintings. I have to pay some bills. You can buy my paintings through Jack Cascione paints on Face Book.
Post Number: 434
Registered: 11-2004 Juan: I think I gave clear statements as to why the Voters, regardless if they welcome advice and council from women in the congregation, must ultimately vote their own conscience according to
the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions (Catechism).

The activity of the Voters' Assembly is sanctification, i.e. love and service to the congregation. They vote as individuals and not as families. Perhaps you could explain to the board what your ideal
view of what a Voters' Assembly is and does. Where does all of this touch the ground? How do you expect to organize any group of Voters' and for what purpose? You say you are not a pastor. If
you ever were a pastor, you certainly do not talk like one who can gather, organize, and keep a Voters' Assembly functioning. I doubt they would know what you were talking about.

Voting is clearly described in the New Testament with the Greek word "cheirotoneo"

KJV Acts 14:23 “And when they had ordained [chose by vote] them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.” (We can
assume that King James and the Anglican Church translated "cheirotoneo" "ordained" because they didn't want the people to vote.)

KJV 2 Corinthians 8:19 “And not that only, but who was also chosen [by vote] of the churches to travel with us with this grace, which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and
declaration of your ready mind:”

Second, a number of translations incorrectly define "cheirotoneo" as "ordain." However, all authoritative Greek lexicons state that the New Testament clearly teaches congregational voting by using
the word "cheirotoneo." Translating "cheirotoneo" to "choose," or "appoint," must be understood as "choose by vote" or "appoint by vote."

Third, LCMS theologians have always taught that congregational voting was Biblical including, Pieper , John Fritz, J. T. Mueller, George Perlich, and C. F. W. Walther.
Posted on Friday, March 05, 2021 - 1:02 pm:

Juan Jeanniton And there is also ANOTHER thing I would like to point out: C. F. W. Walther said (Essays for the Church, Vol. I, by C.F.W. Walther, Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, MO, 1992, p. 73),
(Casusconscientiae)
Member quote:
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 65 The statement: "Where there is a right, there is also the ability to exercise that right," must absolutely be rejected. A one-day-old infant that has been baptized has the same right
Registered: 2-2021 as every adult Christian, but certainly not the ability to exercise it. Similarly, a woman has the right and power to vote, but through St. Paul God has expressly forbidden her to
exercise that right.

The Rev. Walther, the founder of the Missouri Synod's "voters' assemblies" in every local congregation of the LCMS, has made an error somewhere. He says, "but through St. Paul God has
expressly forbidden her to exercise that right" - well then, WHO is it that DARED PRESUME to give HER the right and power to vote if God forbids her to exercise such a right? Would GOD Himself
grant HER, under the pretext of the priesthood of all believers, a Scripturally revealed right and power which His OWN moral law of nature and of the sexes, also revealed in the Bible,
ABSOLUTELY FORBIDS to women? Remember, the Holy Spirit CANNOT contradict Himself. The truth is, the mere FACT that God forbids her to exercise some given particular right or prerogative
constitutes the DEFINITIVE and DECISIVE PROOF that she never had the right or power in the first place!

In addition, it has always been a major contention of mine that it is contrary to divine law to grant to others more powers and rights than one himself already has.

First of all, when you exercise a prerogative that belongs to somebody else, you have STOLEN his due share of independence, liberty & privacy that the laws of Nature and Nature’s God accede to
him. You have also have stolen his just and lawful freedom from undue interference. That is THEFT!

Secondly, the Bible clearly teaches THOU SHALT NOT STEAL. But those who receive stolen goods are just as guilty of breaking this precept of Divine Law. Therefore, those who receive grants of
authority from those that cannot lawfully possess it are guilty of breaking this precept. This proves DEFINITIVELY, on the grounds of the Bible, Lutheran Confessions, and distinctive doctrines of the
all the past generations of the LCMS (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod) and WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) ever before the LCMS gave women in 1969 the right to vote as
members of the congregation, that Nemo plus iuris ad alium transferre potest quam ipse habet – no man can transfer to others more jurisdiction than he himself lawfully possess. Therefore NO
woman or girl can lawfully confer upon any male "representative" any right to vote or harangue on her behalf in the voters' assembly, since according to the teachings of C. F. W. Walther on Church
Polity, she herself is not eligible to possess those rights at all.
Posted on Friday, March 05, 2021 - 9:00 pm:

Juan Jeanniton To the Rev. Cascione:

(Casusconscientiae)
Member You said, "I think I gave clear statements as to why the Voters, regardless if they welcome advice and council from women in the congregation, must ultimately vote their own conscience according
Username: Casusconscientiae
to the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions (Catechism).
Post Number: 67
Registered: 2-2021 The activity of the Voters' Assembly is sanctification, i.e. love and service to the congregation. They vote as individuals and not as families."

But in a much earlier post, you YOURSELF testified that you "regularly told" wives "that their husbands can speak for them in the Voters' Assembly". That doesn't sound like the unit of
representation in the voters' assembly is the individual, but rather the family.

Furthermore, you claimed that you "told the widows, single women, and women whose husbands did not belong to the church, that it was the elders' duty to represent them in the Voters'
Assembly." What about the fathers, brothers, and sons of spinsters and widows? Why did you not tell these spinsters and widows that it was the duty of adult brothers to represent sisters, and adult
sons to represent their widowed mothers at the Voter's Assembly, provided that they are all members of the SAME local congregation??

And once again, C F W Walther testified that the voters' assembly is an act of ruling and governing the church. That has always been the historical teaching of the Missouri Synod until they voted to
give women the vote in the voters' assembly!

The function of the husband is love and service to his wife, but that doesn't negate the fact of his de jure divino marital authority and jurisdiction. Likewise, the voters' assembly should exercise its
rights and functions in a spirit of Christian love and service, but that doesn't negate the fact that C F W Walther taught the supreme governing authority of the voter's assembly in the local
congregation. I keep having to remind my fellow LutherQuest users of this very often. How else are you going to account for the fact that C F W Walther would still not let women vote in the voters'
assemblies even if they had not been publicly addressing or publicly speaking out loud in that assembly in order to express their opinions on the church matters the voters' assembly is then
discussing, except for the fact that C F W Walther taught the supreme governing authority of the voter's assembly in the local congregation??
Posted on Sunday, March 07, 2021 - 10:07 am:

Juan Jeanniton And to prevent any misunderstanding, it must be noted that when C. F. W. Walther said, "Similarly, a woman has the right and power to vote", that is the mistake that he made. Although he DID say
(Casusconscientiae) that God, through the divinely inspired writings of St. Paul has forbidden women to exercise that right, yet C. F. W. Walther failed to come to the obvious logical conclusion that women never had
Member that right at all! Would GOD Himself grant HER, under the pretext of the priesthood of all believers, a Scripturally revealed right and power which His OWN moral law of nature and of the sexes,
Username: Casusconscientiae
also revealed in the Bible, ABSOLUTELY FORBIDS to women?
Post Number: 71
Registered: 2-2021

Posted on Sunday, March 07, 2021 - 11:09 am:

Juan Jeanniton Also, the Rev. Cascione is not present on this forum at the moment. In an earlier post, he said, "The activity of the Voters' Assembly is sanctification, i.e. love and service to the congregation. They
(Casusconscientiae) vote as individuals and not as families." But how does that mere fact explain the reason WHY C. F. W. Walther considered it a violation of 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 and 1 Timothy 2:11/12 for women
Member to vote in the Voters' Assembly even if it does not involve publicly addressing the assembly in an audible voice loud enough for the whole assembly to hear?
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 72 Either the mere act of voting in the Voters' Assembly is ipso facto an act of publicly and orally addressing the assembly in an audible voice loud enough for the whole assembly to hear or it isn't. If it
Registered: 2-2021 IS, well then no wonder the Missouri Synod has historically forbidden it to women (besides the fact that to give women the vote would be contrary to what I had assumed when formulating these 3
cases of conscience: namely that 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 applies today EXACTLY AS WRITTEN). But if it ISN'T, well then the mere fact that "if the practice of Voters' Assemblies is not love and
service, it doesn't belong in the church" is not sufficient to explain WHY women still ought to be excluded from even voting silently or by a mere written vote in the Voters' Assembly. Something else
is needed: namely, the fact that C. F. W. Walther taught that the Voters' Assembly is the divinely constituted supreme governing body unique to the local congregation in all things not contrary to the
Bible and Lutheran Confessions, provided that matters of doctrine are not debated, discussed, changed, innovated, or contradicted in that voters' assembly. I keep having to remind even the Rev.
Cascione himself of this fact every single time.
Posted on Monday, March 08, 2021 - 9:33 pm:

Juan Jeanniton Mr. Gorman, you said, "Your cases are irrelevant. Voters don’t represent the women of the congregation, the men, or even themselves. Voters represent Christ who is their head (1 Cor 11:3)."
(Casusconscientiae)
Member If that is so, why is it that "Intrepid-Lutherans" said that
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 77 http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2011/05/:

Registered: 2-2021
quote:

Q4. How can the concerns of women members be addressed by the congregation if they can't vote, especially if they are single, or their husbands are not members?

A. As part of the Headship Principle, it is the duty and responsibility of every man in the congregation to take into consideration the feelings, questions, and suggestions of the
women members. If this is not done, or no provision is made for this, then it is the men who are clearly violating God's Order of Creation. Note that Barak was dishonored by God
when he failed to take the lead against Israel's enemies. Judges 4:9 records,
"Barak said to [Deborah], 'If you go [along to war] with me, I will go; but if you don't go with me, I won't go.' 'Very well,' Deborah said, 'I will go with you. But because of the way
you are doing this, the honor will not be yours, for the LORD will hand Sisera over to a woman.' So Deborah went with Barak to Kedesh."

Doesn't that PROVE (or at least confer the benefit of the doubt on those who claim) that the men at the voters' assembly represent not just themselves as individual males, but also their female
friends about whom they are concerned? Therefore your claim that "voters don’t represent the women of the congregation, the men, or even themselves" is untenable. For more information, I
advise every member of this LutherQuest forum to consult: https://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/SpencerOrderOfCreation.pdf.
Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2021 - 12:05 am:

Juan Jeanniton Oh! I forgot! Check this out also:

(Casusconscientiae)
Member http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2011/05/:
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 78 quote:

Registered: 2-2021
TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2011
The Order of Creation and the Headship Principle: Christian Men and Women in the home, church and society

As we recently broached the topic of gender in relation to ministerial authority in the church (Music for Holy Week, Part 4 – excerpts from Lukas Passion), and since the issue of
"women's ministry" is, once again, heating up in the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), we thought it would be timely to post a three-session study on the Bible's
teaching of Headship, written by Intrepid Lutheran, Rev. Steven Spencer. It is a Bible Study which he takes all his new members through, as part of their instruction; and it is a
good reminder to all of us what the Scriptures teach, in direct positive terms, regarding Headship.

A PDF version of this study can be downloaded at the following link: The Order of Creation and the Headship Principle, by Rev. Steven D. Spencer (WELS)

http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2011/05/order-of- creation-and-headship.html:

quote:

THE ORDER OF CREATION AND THE HEADSHIP PRINCIPLE

A Bible Study

by Pastor Steven D. Spencer

...

Session Three

...

Q4. How can the concerns of women members be addressed by the congregation if they can't vote, especially if they are single, or their husbands are not members?

A. As part of the Headship Principle, it is the duty and responsibility of every man in the congregation to take into consideration the feelings, questions, and suggestions of the
women members. If this is not done, or no provision is made for this, then it is the men who are clearly violating God's Order of Creation.