Log Out | Topics | Search

3 Cases of Conscience Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Luther Quest Discussion Group » General Discussions » 3 Cases of Conscience « Previous Next »

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post

Archive through February 28, 2021 David Jay Webber (Dj 30 1 2-28-21 5:56 pm
Archive through March 01, 2021 Juan Jeanniton (Casu 30 1 3-01-21 6:14 pm
Archive through March 09, 2021 Juan Jeanniton (Casu 30 1 3-09-21 12:05 am
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message

Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2021 - 3:15 pm:

Daniel Gorman (Heinrich) Juan Jeanniton cites Intrepid Lutheran Rev. Spencer: “As part of the Headship Principle, it is the duty and responsibility of every man in the congregation to take into consideration the feelings,
Senior Member 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
Username: Heinrich dishonored by God when he failed to take the lead against Israel's enemies. Judges 4:9 records,
Post Number: 4493 "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,
Registered: 11-2004 the honor will not be yours, for the LORD will hand Sisera over to a woman.' So Deborah went with Barak to Kedesh."”

Juan Jeanniton: “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.”

The headship principle means that all the men of the congregation, not just the voters, are accountable for all of their own sins plus all the sins of all the women of the congregation (Rom 5:12; 1
Cor. 15:22; 1 Tim 2:14). But Jesus Christ has taken on that crushing burden of headship sins as “the head of every man” and also as “woman’s head” (Gen 3:15; Phil 2:8; Heb 2:17).

The headship of Jesus Christ means the voters are now His “slaves of obedience” They are no longer slaves of their own sins and those of their womenfolk. They represent Christ alone and His
righteousness which is now their righteousness:

“Do you not know that when you offer yourselves to obey someone as slaves, you are slaves of the one you are obeying—whether slaves of sin, resulting in death, or slaves of obedience, resulting
in righteousness?” Rom 6:16, EHV

Juan Jeanniton again cites Rev. Spencer: “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.”

God’s Order of Creation condemns every man in the congregation. They cannot stop breaking God’s headship command:

“14 Certainly we know that the law is spiritual, but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 For I do not understand what I am doing, because I do not keep doing what I want. Instead, I do what I
hate. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 But now it is no longer I who am doing it, but it is sin living in me. 18 Indeed, I know that good does not live in me, that
is, in my sinful flesh. The desire to do good is present with me, but I am not able to carry it out. 19 So I fail to do the good I want to do. Instead, the evil I do not want to do, that is what I keep doing.
20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who am doing it, but it is sin living in me.” Rom 7:14-20, EHV

Thanks be to Almighty Christ who. as the perfect head of every man and of every woman, has fulfilled the Order of Creation on every man’s behalf:

“In order, therefore, that troubled hearts may have a firm, sure consolation, also, that due honor be
given to the merit of Christ and the grace of God, the Scriptures teach that the righteousness of faith
before God consists alone in the gracious [gratuitous] reconciliation or the forgiveness of sins, which is
presented to us out of pure grace, for the sake of the only merit of the Mediator, Christ, and is received
through faith alone in the promise of the Gospel. In like manner, too, in justification before God faith
relies neither upon contrition nor upon love or other virtues, but upon Christ alone, and in Him upon His
complete obedience by which He has fulfilled the Law for us, which [obedience] is imputed to believers
for righteousness.” FC,SD,III
Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2021 - 4:00 pm:

Juan Jeanniton Mr. Gorman, the replies you have given to my last post fail to answer the question. They fail to take in account that the men of the congregation can take the feelings, questions, and suggestions of
(Casusconscientiae) the women members into account, therefore this constitutes a form of virtual representation. Therefore I cannot accept your claim that "voters don’t represent the women of the congregation, the
Member men, or even themselves". The burden of proof is on you to show from the Bible and Lutheran Confessions at least one of these two things: Either precisely WHY it is NOT a valid or true and
Username: Casusconscientiae genuine form of representation for any man in the voters' assembly to take the feelings, questions, and suggestions of the women members into account in the vote that he casts in
Post Number: 79 that assembly, or else that even if all the MEN of the voters' assembly already know objectively and forensically - irrespective of the opinion of the women - that a certain matter in
Registered: 2-2021 question is adiaphora or at least not a matter of doctrine, and the WOMEN do not try to boss him around, or tell and command him to vote according to their opinions on the matter,
but merely petition him privately or by mere written letter as a mere matter of grace and favor, while, with due respect for his lawful headship and authority in the voters' assembly,
conceding to him the unquestionable right to grant or refuse their petition at pleasure, still it is NOT lawful for any man in the voters' assembly to take the feelings, questions, and
suggestions of the women members in that particular matter into account in the vote that he casts in that assembly in that particular matter. And that is what you have FAILED to prove.
Until you prove either one or both of those two things, the benefit of the doubt belongs to those who say the unit of representation in the voters' assembly is the family rather than the individual. And
for the record, I NEVER PLEADED EVEN ONCE ON THIS LUTHERQUEST FORUM FOR THE WOMEN TO DELIVER THEIR PETITION BY MEANS OF PUBLICLY ADDRESSING THE
ASSEMBLY IN AN AUDIBLE VOICE LIKE A SO-CALLED "PUBLIC SPEAKER" WOULD DO AT A VOTERS' ASSEMBLY OF ANY LOCAL CONGREGATION!
Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2021 - 1:13 am:

Daniel Gorman (Heinrich) Juan Jeanniton: "Mr. Gorman, the replies you have given to my last post fail to answer the question. They fail to take in account that the men of the congregation can take the feelings, questions,
Senior Member and suggestions of the women members into account, therefore this constitutes a form of virtual representation."
Username: Heinrich

Post Number: 4494 No doubt the men of the congregation love the women of the congregation and they are greatly affected by their feelings, questions, and suggestions (whether licit or illicit). But the men of the
Registered: 11-2004 congregation do not represent the women of the congregation either virtually or in reality. They represent Christ alone who is their Head, their Lord, their Master, and their God.

"I believe that there is upon earth a little holy group and congregation of pure saints, under one head, even Christ, called together by the Holy Ghost in one faith, one mind, and understanding, with
manifold gifts, yet agreeing in love, without sects or schisms." Large Catechism, Of the Creed, Third Article

"Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.” Matt 4:10, EHV

"Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” John 20:28, EHV

"I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man" 1 Cor 11:3, EHV
Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2021 - 1:11 pm:

Juan Jeanniton Mr. Gorman, you said:

(Casusconscientiae)
Member "Juan Jeanniton: "Mr. Gorman, the replies you have given to my last post fail to answer the question. They fail to take in account that the men of the congregation can take the feelings, questions,
Username: Casusconscientiae and suggestions of the women members into account, therefore this constitutes a form of virtual representation."
Post Number: 80
Registered: 2-2021 No doubt the men of the congregation love the women of the congregation and they are greatly affected by their feelings, questions, and suggestions (whether licit or illicit). But the men of the
congregation do not represent the women of the congregation either virtually or in reality. They represent Christ alone who is their Head, their Lord, their Master, and their God."

But surely, these men are natural protectors of their women. That in itself ought to be a strong presumptive evidence that these men are qualified to represent their womenfolk at the Voters'
Assembly. The burden of proof is on those who claim anything to the contrary: they must provide a detailed proof from the Bible and Lutheran Confessions that even the fact that men are natural
protectors of their women cannot make the votes of the men at the Voters' Assembly representative of their womenfolk.

Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2021 - 2:46 pm:

Daniel Gorman (Heinrich) God established men as the natural protectors of women when He eternally decreed: "man is woman's head" (1 Cor 11:3, EHV). However, man has not protected woman from spiritual temptation
Senior Member (Gen 3:1-6). Man is forever accountable for every woman's sin (Rom 5:12). Only the perfect Man, the head of every man, can restore God's image in woman.
Username: Heinrich

Post Number: 4496 Women should not look to male voters to represent them in the church. Just as the husband is head of the wife, Christ is the head of the Church. Just as wives represent their husbands (e.g., Mrs.
Registered: 11-2004 John Smith), every man and woman in a congregation of saints represent Christ (i.e., Christians).

"22 Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he himself is the Savior. 24 Moreover,
as the church submits to Christ, so also wives are to submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, in the same way as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
26 to make her holy, by cleansing her with the washing of water in connection with the Word. 27 He did this so that he could present her to himself as a glorious church, having no stain or wrinkle or
any such thing, but so that she would be holy and blameless. 28 In the same way, husbands have an obligation to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29
To be sure, no one has ever hated his own body, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones. 31 For this
reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery, but I am talking about Christ and the church." Eph 5:22-32, EHV
Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2021 - 2:49 pm:

Juan Jeanniton Mr. Gorman, you said, "Just as wives represent their husbands (e.g., Mrs. John Smith)", why doesn't that PROVE that the husband is competent to represent his wife through his vote at the voters'
(Casusconscientiae) assembly? And in your explanation, please provide evidence from the Bible and Lutheran Confessions.
Member
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 81
Registered: 2-2021

Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2021 - 3:41 pm:

Daniel Gorman (Heinrich) I've already provided overwhelming evidence from scripture and the Lutheran Confessions that voters represent Christ not women.
Senior Member
Username: Heinrich Only in our sick feminist culture could a husband be said to "represent" his wife (e.g., Mr. Jane Smith). The error of Missouri in permitting female voters was predicated by the false view that women
Post Number: 4497 must be represented in the church. That view was predicated by the false view that women must be represented in the secular state.
Registered: 11-2004

Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2021 - 5:17 pm:

Juan Jeanniton Mr. Gorman, you said, "Only in our sick feminist culture could a husband be said to "represent" his wife (e.g., Mr. Jane Smith). The error of Missouri in permitting female voters was predicated by
(Casusconscientiae) the false view that women must be represented in the church. That view was predicated by the false view that women must be represented in the secular state." But this reply of yours, alleging that
Member the view that a husband represents his wife at the ballot box is feminist in origin and therefore must be rejected, is a fallacy called Bulverism (which is a logical fallacy in which one party simply
Username: Casusconscientiae assumes that the other party is wrong and explains their reasons for wanting to believe it rather than addressing the argument itself)/Genetic-Fallacy (which consists of rejecting or accepting
Post Number: 82 something solely on the basis of its origin, without looking at meaning or context). The truth of the matter is, it was precisely the anti-feminists and anti-suffragists, not the feminists or suffragists,
Registered: 2-2021 who asserted that women are ALREADY represented by their husbands, brothers, fathers, and adult sons at the ballot box, and therefore there is no NEED for women to vote in person! See
Horace Bushnell, Women's Suffrage: The Reform Against Nature, page 68, in which the author, a strong ANTI-SUFFRAGIST, plainly states "As regards this question of suffrage, or the allowing of
suffrage to women, there is yet another way of constructing the argument, which, though it may not be another, may be more convincing to some, viz. :— that the male and female natures
together constitute the proper man, and are, therefore, both represented in the vote of the man. And the radical idea here assumed of the composite unity of the two, is attested, in fact, all
over the world, in one form or another, and in different modes and degrees, whenever a marriage puts them in connection as husband and wife. The woman passes under shelter and protection, so
far as even to drop her family name, and be only known under the family name of her husband. In the English common law she is said to be femme covert, a woman who is included, as respects all
civil rights, in her husband. Her personality is so far merged in his, that she can not bring a suit any more in her own name, for it is a name no longer known to the law. The assumption is that, being
in and of her husband, he will both act and answer for her, except when arraigned for crime. The Roman or civil law received by so many of the principal nations of the world, carries similar ideas
with it, asserting the civil absorption of the wife in the husband in terms but slightly qualified. The Russian law and the Chinese correspond. In all which we may see how close to nature runs the
impression that woman is a complementary personality, and is rightly taken to exist in her husband, as she passes under his name in her marriage, and is consentingly covered by his protectorship.
Hence it is put forward by some, as the true answer to the claim of women's suffrage, that they are already represented in and by the vote of their husbands. But this again is only saying that they
will be duly cared for and protected, by the voice their husbands have in government, when they do not govern for themselves. And nothing can be assumed more safely than that ..." Therefore the
burden of proof is on YOU to provide BETTER evidence from the Bible and Lutheran Confessions to REFUTE everything Mr. Bushnell has said in favor of "virtual representation" of the wife by the
votes of the husband. More specifically I want to see a detailed point-by-point rebuttal - using evidence from the Bible and Lutheran Confessions - of EVERY one of the points Mr. Bushnell has
made on page 68 and which I just quoted in the excerpt.

Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2021 - 8:31 pm:

Juan Jeanniton And just in case you have forgotten, Mr. Horace Bushnell, "Hence it is put forward by some, as the true answer to the claim of women's suffrage, that they are already represented in and by the
(Casusconscientiae) vote of their husbands. But this again is only saying that they will be duly cared for and protected, by the voice their husbands have in government, when they do not govern for themselves. And
Member nothing can be assumed more safely than that ..." Why is that not a valid proof for the claim that the husband represents his wife through his votes at the Voters' Assembly of the local
Username: Casusconscientiae
congregational church of which they are both members? And also, how can you in good conscience claim that what Mr. Bushnell said is a FEMINIST idea, instead of admitting that he was an ANTI-
Post Number: 83 FEMINIST and ANTI-SUFFRAGIST? The fact is, Mr. Bushnell pleaded his idea of the virtual representation of the female sex through the votes of the male sex, SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of
Registered: 2-2021 DEFEATING feminism and woman-suffrage. How can you in good conscience claim that this idea of virtual representation is feminism?

Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2021 - 9:14 pm:

Juan Jeanniton Correction! What I meant to say is:

(Casusconscientiae)
Member quote:
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 84 And just in case you have forgotten, Mr. Horace Bushnell stated that "Hence it is put forward by some, as the true answer to the claim of women's suffrage, that they are already
Registered: 2-2021 represented in and by the vote of their husbands. But this again is only saying that they will be duly cared for and protected, by the voice their husbands have in government,
when they do not govern for themselves. And nothing can be assumed more safely than that ..." ...

But if your claim that the view that a husband represents his wife at the ballot box is feminist in origin is historically accurate, well then it follows that NO anti-suffragist / anti-feminist can advocate or
practice the theory of virtual representation in the State or in the Waltherian / Missourian Voters' assembly in any Waltherian local congregation of the LCMS / WELS / CLC and thereby produce a
frame or pattern of church or state government which is one jot less feminist/gynocentric than the form of church/state government resulting from the direct personal self-representation that the
suffragettes and feminists accomplished when they won women the right to vote!

Posted on Friday, March 12, 2021 - 12:56 am:

Daniel Gorman (Heinrich) Virtual representation of women is a feminist idea because it inevitably leads to feminist rule. LCMS is a perfect example of what happens when a synod adopts this view. The only valid argument
Senior Member against women's suffrage is that women need not and should not be represented: "man is woman's head" 1 Cor 11:3, EHV
Username: Heinrich

Post Number: 4498 The Glorious Revolution of 1688 replaced the British monarchy with a Parliament elected by men which hired and fired monarchs. The colonial/state governments in America were also elected by
Registered: 11-2004 men. The U.S. Constitution erred by saying "We the people" when it really meant "We the men".

Male representative government in the U.S.A. was replaced by feminist rule in 1920 when the 19th amendment was ratified. This was a real revolution as opposed to the faux American Revolution
of 1776.

Posted on Friday, March 12, 2021 - 9:30 am:

Juan Jeanniton My Reply to Mr. Gorman's claim that "Virtual representation of women is a feminist idea" - Part I.
(Casusconscientiae)
Member Mr. Gorman, you said: "Virtual representation of women is a feminist idea because it inevitably leads to feminist rule. LCMS is a perfect example of what happens when a synod adopts this view."
Username: Casusconscientiae But your answer FAILS to take into account the fact that it was PRECISELY the anti-suffragists and anti-feminists who pleaded that women are already represented through the votes of their
Post Number: 85 husbands, brothers, fathers, or sons, and therefore these women don't even NEED to vote in person. This concept of "virtual representation" of women through the votes of their husbands,
Registered: 2-2021 brothers, fathers, or sons is precisely the notion the feminists and suffragists were fighting AGAINST! The feminists and suffragists contended that women should be given the right to vote in
person and therefore represent themselves directly and personally at the ballot box without the need to be represented through the votes of their husbands, brothers, fathers, or sons. Therefore,
since you are an anti-suffragist, why do you plead AGAINST virtual representation of women through the votes of their adult male relatives, when in fact this sort of virtual representation was
precisely the thing the anti-suffragists and anti-feminists pleaded for as a reason why women don't even need to vote in person?

To DENY that women are already represented through the votes of their husbands, brothers, fathers, or sons is to ATTACK the anti-feminists and anti-suffragists using the SAME strategy the
feminists and suffragists used in order to attempt to refute the notion of the virtual representation of women through the votes of their adult male relatives.
Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2021 - 12:04 am:

Daniel Gorman (Heinrich) The problem with virtual representation, as a debate strategy, is that the anti-suffragettes give up the moral high ground of men being the governing authority ordained by God (1 Cor 11:3; Roman
Senior Member 13:1). Instead, they unilaterally concede the suffragettes main talking point: That women must be represented in the electoral process. It's like an army abandoning its fortress to fight on the
Username: Heinrich enemy's home turf.
Post Number: 4499
Registered: 11-2004 Anti-suffragettes contend that women are better represented through the votes of their husbands, brothers, fathers, or sons than by casting their own direct votes. That's a losing argument.

Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2021 - 9:21 am:

Juan Jeanniton My Reply to Mr. Gorman's claim that "Virtual representation of women is a feminist idea" - Part II.
(Casusconscientiae)
Member Mr. Gorman, you said,
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 86 quote:

Registered: 2-2021
The problem with virtual representation, as a debate strategy, is that the anti-suffragettes give up the moral high ground of men being the governing authority ordained by God (1
Cor 11:3; Roman 13:1). Instead, they unilaterally concede the suffragettes main talking point: That women must be represented in the electoral process. It's like an army
abandoning its fortress to fight on the enemy's home turf.

Anti-suffragettes contend that women are better represented through the votes of their husbands, brothers, fathers, or sons than by casting their own direct votes. That's a losing
argument.

Another reason why this whole idea of "virtual representation" of women through the votes of their adult male relatives is untenable is because "virtual representation" of one class through the votes
of another class doesn't work even in principle! "Virtual Representation" is a pettifogging trick the British used in order to justify their unjust and cruel laws of taxation of the American Colonies!

https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/collected-politi cal-writings#January_20_1766:

quote:

The law knows no such thing as virtual representation. There can be no representation in parliament but a real one, and any man may be defied to form the idea of any other. It is
observable that in the act 1. J. 1. Wherein “the parliament agonize on the knees of their hearts, their most constant faith, obedience & loyalty to his Majesty and his royal progeny,
as in that high court of parliament where all the whole body of the realm, and every particular member thereof, either in person or by representation, upon their own free election,
are by the laws of this realm deemed to be present”; there is not a word of virtual representation. The realm and the realm only, and all parts of it, are declared to be deemed as
there in person, or by representatives of their own chusing; and with great reason for the members are collected from all parts of the realm on the free election of the people.

Also, the former Prime Minister, William Pitt, said (Walford Davis Green, William Pitt, Earl of Chatham and the Growth and Division of the British Empire, 1708–1778. 1901. p. 255):

quote:

The idea of a virtual representation of America in this House is the most contemptible that ever entered into the head of a man. It does not deserve a serious refutation. The
Commons of America, represented in their several assemblies, have ever been in possession of the exercise of this their constitutional right, of giving and granting their own
money. They would have been slaves if they had not enjoyed it.

This is true of human ENGLISH law. I have been trying as best as possible to prove from the Bible and Lutheran Confessions that there is no such thing as virtual representation in church
government or state government.

You also said in an earlier post, "The Glorious Revolution of 1688 replaced the British monarchy with a Parliament elected by men which hired and fired monarchs. The colonial/state governments
in America were also elected by men. The U.S. Constitution erred by saying "We the people" when it really meant "We the men"." There is something else you must consider.

In England itself, there was a book, written in 1795, called Modern Reports, Or, Select Cases Adjudged in the Courts of King's Bench ...: we find on Page 264:

quote:

LEE, Chief Justice. This may be a very extensive determination, if the usage of not voting has avoided the right of voting only where private property is concerned. The question
here is, Whether a woman is to be taken within the general words “of all persons paying scot and lot?” In Brady's Append. 35., Lady Packington returned two members to
parliament to serve in her name, It was said to be declared by the Judges, in the case of Coates v. Lisle, in the fourteenth year of James the First, that clergymen could not vote.
By a collection of Hakewell's, in the case of Catharine v. Surry, the opinion of the Judges, as he says, was, that a feme sole [viz., any adult woman that is either unmarried or else
widowed and not yet remarried], if she has a freehold, may vote for members of parliament: and by this it seems as if there was no disability: but the nature of the office to be
executed may determine this question.

Note: Hakewell's collection was written sometime between the 16th and 17th centuries in England. James I, in honour of whom, the King James Version of the English Bible, was named, ruled both
England and Scotland in the 17th Century: over 100 years BEFORE the French Revolution.

On page 271, we find the following:

quote:

LEE, Chief Justice. I have seen a manuscript treatise (c [Hakewell's Mod, Ten. Part.]) which says, that it was the Judges opinion, that the clergy had no right to vote for members
of parliament. In the case of Holt v. Lyle (d [4. Jac. I.]) it is determined, that a feme sole freeholder [viz., any adult woman freeholder that is either unmarried or else widowed and
not yet remarried] may claim a voice for parliament men, but if married her husband must vote for her.

The three cases, Holt vs. Lyle, Cotes vs. Lyle & Catherine vs. Surray all settled during the 17th century, all agree: every woman freeholder who is unmarried or else widowed without yet remarrying
may lawfully vote for members of Parliament, but if she marries, only her husband can vote for her.

Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2021 - 9:40 am:

Juan Jeanniton My Reply to Mr. Gorman's claim that "Virtual representation of women is a feminist idea" - Part III.
(Casusconscientiae)
Member In addition, during the American Revolution,
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 87 Letter from Richard Henry Lee to Hannah Lee Corbin, 17 March 1778, https://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/lee -to-corbin.html, https://declaration.fas.harvard.edu/blog/march-lad ies:
Registered: 2-2021
quote:

You complain that widows are not represented [in the Virginia legislature], and that being temporary possessors of their estates ought not to be liable to the tax. The doctrine of
representation is a large subject, and it is certain that it ought to be extended as far as wisdom and policy can allow; nor do I see that either of these forbid widows having
property from voting, notwithstanding it has never been the practice either here or in England. Perhaps 'twas thought rather out of character for women to press into those
tumultuous assemblages of men where the business of choosing representatives is conducted. And it might also have been considered as not so necessary, seeing that the
representatives themselves, as their immediate constituents, must suffer the tax imposed in exact proportion as does all other property taxed, and that, therefore, it could not be
supposed that taxes would be laid where the public good did not demand it. This, then, is the widow’s security as well as that of the never married women, who have lands
in their own right, for both of whom I have the highest respect, and would at any time give my consent to establish their right of voting… When we complained of
British taxation we did so with much reason, and there is great difference between our case and that of the unrepresented in this country. The English Parliament nor their
representatives would pay a farthing of the tax they imposed on us but quite otherwise. Their property would have been exonerated in exact proportion to the burthens they laid
on ours. Oppressions, therefore, without end and taxes without reason or public necessity would have been our fate had we submitted to British usurpation. For my part I had
much rather leave my children free than in possession of great nominal wealth, which would infallibly have been the case with all American possessions had our property been
subject to the arbitrary taxation of a British Parliament.

In the laws of the State of New Jersey, 1797, it was actually enacted in Section 9:

quote:

That every voter shall openly, and in full view, deliver HIS or HER ballot, which shall be a single written ticket, containing the names of the person or persons for whom HE or SHE
votes...

. And in Secition 11:

quote:

That all free inhabitants of this State, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds, proclamation money, and have resided within the county in which they claim a vote, for twelve months
immediately preceding the election, shall be entitled to vote for all public officers, which shall be elected by virtue of this act; and no person shall be entitled to vote in any other
township or precinct, than that in which HE or SHE doth actually reside at the time of the election.

Lastly you said, "Male representative government in the U.S.A. was replaced by feminist rule in 1920 when the 19th amendment was ratified. This was a real revolution as opposed to the faux
American Revolution of 1776." Now, the the of the matter is, those who sought that the 19th amendment should be passed had fought AGAINST "virtual representation of the women through the
votes of their male relatives", while those who fought to PREVENT the 19th amendment from being passed pleaded that women should be content to receive virtual representation through the
votes of their male relatives, however in your latest post you mentioned that the anti-suffragette doctrine of "virtual representation" (which I showed was borrowed from the British Tory Despotical
system of taxation of the American Colonies) is actually destined to cause the anti-suffragettes to LOSE the war against woman suffrage. Already, I gave an illustrative example from the American
Revolution showing that the doctrine of virtual representation is fallacious. The British King and Parliament, when they arbitrarily TAXED the Colonies, tried to claim the high moral ground through
their doctrine of "virtual representation": but the American Colonials saw it for the fallacy that it truly IS. The anti-suffragettes, in order to prevent woman-suffrage from becoming the law of the land,
tried to claim the high moral ground through the SAME British Tory doctrine of "virtual representation" (by claiming that women are already represented by the votes of their male relatives), but the
Suffragettes and Feminists also saw it for the fallacy it truly is.
Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2021 - 10:30 am:

Juan Jeanniton To all web forum users, especially the Rev. Cascione:
(Casusconscientiae)
Member Mr Gorman has just replied to my earnest and solicitous questions about virtual representation in the congregation. To many professing Confessing Lutherans, especially of the WELS, "Virtual
Username: Casusconscientiae representation" of the female sex through the votes of the males seems quite plausible, especially because the conventional wisdom of ancient times has held that the family is the basic unit of
Post Number: 88 society. I offer the following facts for consideration:
Registered: 2-2021
(1) There are certain radical, foundational, and essential differences between the family and the state:

John Bluntschli, The Theory of the State, page 195:

"1. The family is based upon marriage. Its members are united by the marriage tie or by blood. But these conceptions which are essential to the family are by no means essential to the State. The
members of a State, as such, are not connected by marriage or blood. They have not always the right of intermarriage, still less do they share a common descent. The fundamental rights of the
family are then independent of the State" [Pomponius, in Dig. 1, Titl. 17, de Reg Jur.: ‘Jura sanguinis nullo jure civili dirumi possunt’ - the rights of kin and blood cannot be abrogated by any civil
law].

[Note: A more valid conclusion would be that if the conceptions essential to A are not essential to B, then B is in some sense independent of A: the state is in some sense independent of the family.
Furthermore, the proposition that the rights of kin and blood cannot be abrogated by civil law is not merely philosophical, it has a sound theological foundation in the Scriptures: for such "rights" or
rather, relative duties essential to the very concept and well-being of the family have been revealed in the Bible and they are confessed fearlessly in the Lutheran Confessions, and are therefore
utterly independent of the State.]

"2. The State is" [in many cases if not all] "based on the organisation of the nation and its relation to the soil. But these ideas find no place in the family. The State consists rather of
individuals, or orders, or classes, than of families, and only exceptionally approaches its members through the family, only interfering in family life when there is a special demand for it, and in the
case of guardianship. Lastly, the family has no connection with the soil.

3. The two organisations differ in character. The head of the family is the father, whose authority is the care of a grown man for the defence of his own flesh and blood; it is essentially a
guardianship (Vormundschaft). In the nation the different classes have interests apart from those of the prince their head; their families are not connected with his, nor are their individual members
his children or his wards. The government of the State is political. Hence the family is not a pattern of the State, but only of one particular form of it, the patriarchal. Family law therefore belongs to
private, not to public law."

(2) "The proposition that the family is the basis of the state has come down through many generations so far as I know, unchallenged; but in the sense in which it is ordinarily understood, and for
the purpose for which it is ordinarily used, it is entirely a fallacy. The state depends upon the family for the continuance of its population, just as it depends upon the school for the intelligence of its
people, and on religious institutions for their morality. But the state stands in no political relation to the family, any more than to the school and the church. What is meant by the proposition as
generally used is, that the state is politically an aggregate of families and not of individuals. This is entirely untrue, and if true the fact would be calamitous. Civil government is supposed to have
had its origin in family government, the patriarch becoming chief of a tribe which was substantially the outgrowth and expansion of a single family; but if a nation was to be formed of such tribes it
would he essential to its peace and prosperity that they should as soon as possible mingle into one homogeneous mass, and that no citizen should consider himself as of one tribe rather than
another. It is the family idea in a government like ours that makes the feuds which are handed down from generation to generation in some parts of the country. If made the frequent bloody contests
of the clans in Scotland, and the dissensions of the Hebrew tribes. In a republic nothing can be more disastrous than that great political leaders should have large family followings. The first duty of
the citizen is to forget that he belongs to any family in particular but is an individual citizen of the state, and when he becomes a magistrate he must practically ignore the fact that he has family
relatives who feel entitled to his special favor [or are absolutely or partially dependent on such favors]. He must, like justice, be blind to every fact, except that the applicant for office or for justice is
an individual citizen and must stand wholly on his personal merits or the justice of his cause." John Hooker, Is the Family the Basis of the State?, circa 1870 - 1880.

Note: In the footnote, John Hooker stated, "The point, of course, is whether the family is the political basis of the state, and not merely its material and moral basis, which is conceded; that is,
whether the principle of Republican government requires that each family and not each individual have a vote. I do not care to discuss the question, but merely to say (1) that the practice of every
known representative government has been to have individuals and not families vote; and ... (3) that if it is the family and not the individuals that should vote, then woman suffrage necessarily
follows—as where there is no man in a family, but only a widow and daughters, or young sons, the widow must cast the vote. Woman suffrage being the inevitable result of family voting, it surely is
a point that the woman suffragists are willing to see your correspondent maintain, and if he can, establish."

TO BE CONTINUED
Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2021 - 11:10 am:

Juan Jeanniton To all web forum users, especially the Rev. Cascione (CONTINUED):
(Casusconscientiae)
Member (3) Objection: "But a husband is the natural protector of his wife, therefore his votes are justly representative of her at the ballot box" ...
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 89 Answer:

Registered: 2-2021
3.i: "In a republic nothing can be more disastrous than that great political leaders should have large family followings. The first duty of the citizen is to forget that he belongs to any family in
particular but [instead, he must remember that he] is an individual citizen of the state, and when he becomes a magistrate he must practically ignore the fact that he has family relatives who [either]
feel entitled to his special favor [or think themselves to be absolutely dependent on his protection]. He must, like justice, be blind to every fact, except that the applicant for office or for justice is an
individual citizen and must stand wholly on his personal merits or the justice of his cause."

3.ii: The fact of the matter is, the Southern Antebellum Slave Masters often made the SAME claim about THEIR Negro slaves down on the plantation that the above objection is making about
women. These masters viewed themselves as the natural protectors and benefactors of the Negro race. Yet the slave codes were very stringent even on free men of color. The obedience of the
slave to his master was: "the consequence only of uncontrolled authority over the body. . . . . The power of the master must be absolute, to render the submission of the slave perfect. I most freely
confess my sense of the harshness of this proposition. I feel it as deeply as any man can. And, as a principle of moral right, every person in his retirement must repudiate it. But in the actual
condition of things it must be so. There is no remedy. This discipline belongs to the state of Slavery. . . . . It is inherent in the relation of master and slave." (The State v Mann, 2 Devereux, [13]
North Carolina Reports [263], 266, 267 [1829].) Also in Antebellum Virginia, "It is the policy of the law in respect to the relation of master and slave, and for the sake of securing proper
subordination and obedience on the part of the slave, to protect the master from prosecution, even if the whipping and punishment be malicious, cruel, and excessive." (Souther v The
Commonwealth, 7 Grattan, 680 [48 Va 673 (1851)].) Jesus Christ was NOT ignorant of these facts when he said, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise
authority upon them are called benefactors" - Luke 22:25 - in the original Greek: "Oi vasileis ton ethnon kirievousin avton kai oi exousiazontes avton everghetai kalountai" - in the cross references
Matthew 20:25, Mark 10:42 - the words used are KATAKIRIEVO and KATEXOUSIAZO, which mean not just exercise dominion & exercise authority, but often to do so tyrannically and despotically.
The point is, even when these "lords" are exercising tyrannical or totalitarian authority, they are called by the flattering names of Merciful, Benefactors, Protectors, Saviours (and sometimes even
view themselves as such), as if their tyrannical rule had not really been unjust and oppressive but rather merciful and beneficent. That has been the method of many if not all tyrannical regimes.
Thus the proposed objection is fallacious because it repeats the SAME error that these Southern slave masters made with regard to the Negro slaves, and which Jesus CONDEMNED in Matthew
20:25, Mark 10:42, and Luke 22:25.

3.iii: I am pleased with Mr. Gorman's reply. He candidly admitted that even on Waltherian LCMS anti-feminist and anti-suffragist principles, virtual representation doesn't work! "Anti-suffragettes
contend that women are better represented through the votes of their husbands, brothers, fathers, or sons than by casting their own direct votes. That's a losing argument." Since I have also given
illustrative examples of my own to expose the fallacy of virtual representation, I can now CONFIDENTLY conclude that NO anti-suffragist / anti-feminist can advocate or practice the theory of virtual
representation in the State or in the Waltherian Voters' assembly and thereby produce a frame or pattern of church or state government which is one jot less feminist and gynocentric (if not
gynaecocratic) than the form of church/state government resulting from the direct personal self-representation that the suffragettes and feminists accomplished when they won for women the right
to vote and even hold PUBLIC OFFICE in the Government!

(4) In an earlier post, I gave as best as I could of a Scriptural reason WHY no man can lawfully confer upon others more rights and powers and jurisdictions than he himself possesses already.
Furthermore, there can be no representation without delegated authority conferred upon the representative; ergo, if it is contrary to the divine order of creation for women to vote, it is no less
contrary for them to delegate the exercise of that right to the male representatives. And this is the reason why when the anti-feminists and anti-suffragettes tried to use the concept of "virtual
representation" - viz., that women are already represented by their husbands, brothers, fathers, and sons, and other male relatives - in order to defeat the woman-suffrage movement, the anti-
feminists and anti-suffragettes eventually LOST the war against woman suffrage. And such is my case AGAINST the plea that the FAMILY is the unit of representation in the Waltherian voters'
assembly of any Confessional Lutheran local congregation.

FINIS
Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2021 - 12:42 am:

Daniel Gorman (Heinrich) Juan Jeanniton: Thanks for the history lesson. I see from your citations that women's civil rule over men was not confined to the British monarchy and may have been common even in America
Senior Member prior to 1920. A little bit of leaven leavens the whole lump.
Username: Heinrich

Post Number: 4500 Juan Jeanniton: "To many professing Confessing Lutherans, especially of the WELS, "Virtual representation" of the female sex through the votes of the males seems quite plausible, especially
Registered: 11-2004 because the conventional wisdom of ancient times has held that the family is the basic unit of society.""

I think (subject to correction by those more knowledgeable than I) that the "virtual representation" view was much more common in the Waltherian LCMS than in the WELS and that "virtual
representation" remains very much a minority view within WELS.

Note: WELS may be moving away from Waltherian voter assemblies to a small group of men to govern the church. http://www.lutherquest.org/cgi-bin/discus40/show.c gi?
tpc=13&post=310890#POST310890

It is my premise that "virtual representation" leads to women's suffrage. Ergo, WELS retains male headship because it has not embraced "virtual representation".

For example, Pastor Spencer in his Intrepid Lutheran blog entry: "Our government, by an amendment to the Constitution, has determined that women also may participate in voting. However, there
can be many God-pleasing ways for believers to respect the laws of the land, and also keep God's will in this regard. Still, it should go without saying that, at the very least, a believing wife who
understands the teaching of the Order of Creation will endeavor not to cancel out the vote of her husband, and thus overrule his headship." http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2011/05/order-of-
creation-and-headship.html

If you follow Pr. Spencer's reasoning to its logical conclusion, women should have no representation, virtual or otherwise. She either votes the way her husband votes or she doesn't vote at all.

The family is the basic unit of society with the father as head. In traditional Western society, the civil government has been lead by a male king, a male council, or male voters:

"The same also is to be said of obedience to civil government, which (as we have said) is all embraced in the estate of fatherhood and extends farthest of all relations. For here the father is not one
of a single family, but of as many people as he has tenants, citizens, or subjects." Large Catechism, 4th Commandment

Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2021 - 9:49 am:

Juan Jeanniton Mr. Gorman, you said: "The family is the basic unit of society with the father as head. In traditional Western society, the civil government has been lead by a male king, a male council, or male
(Casusconscientiae) voters: "The same also is to be said of obedience to civil government, which (as we have said) is all embraced in the estate of fatherhood and extends farthest of all relations. For here the father is
Member not one of a single family, but of as many people as he has tenants, citizens, or subjects." Large Catechism, 4th Commandment". But the very fact that the "family is the basic unit of society with the
Username: Casusconscientiae father as head", and also that the Large Catechism seems to model the State after the Family, would most naturally seem to warrant the idea that the FAMILY and not the INDIVIDUAL is the unit of
Post Number: 91 political representation of the State, and also the unit of electoral representation in the Waltherian Voters' Assembly: the vote of the male head of the household would represent not only himself as
Registered: 2-2021 a mere adult male individual, but also of the female members of his household, including his wife, daughters, sisters, mother, mother-in-law, and grandmother that may be living and residing in his
household (and I do not understand how this form of representation is NOT either virtual or real representation), and therefore your case against virtual representation of the female members of the
household through the single vote of the adult male head of the household cannot stand. In that case the only LOGICAL thing to do is either accept that "The family is the basic unit of society with
the father as head" and therefore ACCEPT precisely the virtual representation - viz., that women are already represented by their husbands, brothers, fathers, and sons, and other male relatives -
that the anti-suffragettes had been pleading in order to DEFEAT woman-suffrage, or else REJECT virtual representation and therefore REJECT the idea that the family, though having the father as
its head, is the basic unit of society, if it doesn't also require that the Large Catechism's apparent attempt to model the State after the pattern of the family should also be rejected.

Posted on Monday, March 15, 2021 - 12:25 am:

Daniel Gorman (Heinrich) Of course, the feminists reject the family unit just as they reject any institution, be it church or state, that is rooted in male headship. For feminists, “virtual representation” is merely a useful talking
Senior Member point that they can easily knock down in their eternal quest to destroy all male led families, churches, and nations.
Username: Heinrich

Post Number: 4501 “Virtual representation” does not exist for families any more than it exists for churches or for nations. Fathers care for their wives and children just like the men who lead churches take care of their
Registered: 11-2004 congregants and the men who lead countries (whether voters or kings) take care of their citizens. They do not "represent" them.

“Thus we have two kinds of fathers presented in this commandment, fathers in blood and fathers in office, or those to whom belongs the care of the family, and those to whom belongs the care of
the country. Besides these there are yet spiritual fathers; not like those in the Papacy, who have indeed had themselves called thus, but have performed no function of the paternal office. For those
only are called spiritual fathers who govern and guide us by the Word of God as St. Paul boasts his fatherhood 1 Cor. 4, 15, where he says: In Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the
Gospel.” Large Catechism, 4th Commandment
Posted on Monday, March 15, 2021 - 1:32 am:

Juan Jeanniton Mr. Gorman, you stated that "Of course, the feminists reject the family unit just as they reject any institution, be it church or state, that is rooted in male headship. For feminists, “virtual
(Casusconscientiae) representation” is merely a useful talking point that they can easily knock down in their eternal quest to destroy all male led families, churches, and nations.
Member
Username: Casusconscientiae
“Virtual representation” does not exist for families any more than it exists for churches or for nations. Fathers care for their wives and children just like the men who lead churches take care of their
Post Number: 92 congregants and the men who lead countries (whether voters or kings) take care of their citizens. They do not "represent" them."
Registered: 2-2021
I am glad you admitted that "virtual representation" is a philosophical and metaphysical, as well as a theological, political, and juridical IMPOSSIBILITY!
And the reason WHY feminists can so easily knock down "virtual representation" is precisely BECAUSE they themselves KNOW much better - far better (if not also INFINITELY better) than many
of their antifeminist and anti-suffragette opponents - that the very idea of virtual representation in Church or State is a theological and juridical impossibility. The whole concept of virtual
representation is untempered mortar.

"Virtual Representation" + "Anti-Feminism/Anti-Suffragism" = UNTEMPERED MORTAR.

"Virtual Representation" + "Supremacy of the Voters' Assembly" = UNTEMPERED MORTAR.

Thus the wall which the antifeminists and anti-suffragettes built in order to barricade themselves away from the feminists and suffragettes shall not stand, and indeed could never have stood the
test of time in the first place - because these same antifeminists and anti-suffragettes built it up with the untempered mortar called "virtual representation".

Feminists and Suffragettes have pleaded that TAXATION - REPRESENTATION = TYRANNY (which happens to be the E = Mc2 of the American Revolution), and therefore women who pay taxes
have a right to be represented. The antifeminists/antisuffragettes are willing (or at least don't really think it that bad or that infamous or that dishonorable or really all that heinous a crime against
divine law) for a woman who pay taxes to be represented. Only, the antifeminists/antisuffragettes contend that a woman is ALREADY "virtually represented" by the vote of her husband, father,
brothers, or sons, and therefore she doesn't even NEED to vote in person. But according to what you have just proven, the whole concept of 'virtual representation' is a theological as well as
political and juridical impossibility. When it comes to PORK on a Jewish or Muslim dinner table, I don't CARE whether or not there's been a lesion on the lungs or the pig has been cooked with the
milk of its MOTHER! Every Jew or Muslim KNOWS that PORK is TREIF and UNCLEAN (and therefore FORBIDDEN) according to the Torah (Leviticus 11:5 - though the Lutheran Confessions
teach this law has been abrogated on the Cross) and HARAM (and therefore FORBIDDEN) according to the Sharia Law in the Alcoran!! A PIG TODAY REMAINS A PIG TOMORROW AND A PIG
FOREVER!

The best way to repair the breach in the LCMS adult-male-only voter church polity is to REJECT the seemingly plausible argument of "virtual representation".
The best way to repair the breach in the WELS adult-male-only voter church polity is to REJECT the seemingly plausible argument of "virtual representation".

And as for the tenet that the family is the basic unit of society, DISTINGUO (I distinguish): (a) the POLITICAL unit of society is the family in the sense that it is a FAMILY and not an INDIVIDUAL
that is the smallest possible self-representing unit in the state and which does not stand in need of anyone outside itself to represent it, and which is not necessarily authorized to represent any
person outside itself; (b) the material and moral basis of society and the State is the family in that it is the most elementary and simplest possible training ground in which the habits and morals are
to be taught and learned and without which there cannot be any law-abiding acceptable citizenship in the State; (c) the primary, most elementary, and simplest possible social group is the family.
Now, I reject (a) - because that would furnish the most plausible pretext for "virtual representation" which you yourself have already rejected, but I accept both (b) & (c) because not only is this the
teaching of the Bible and Lutheran Confessions (as well as the conventional wisdom of ancient times) teach, but it is also indeed (by elimination of the impossible case (a)) the ONLY true and
accurate meaning - and the ONLY logically possible meaning - of what it means for the family to be the basic unit of society.

Stick around in the future for another case of conscience, this time, concerning Jeanne d'Albret, the highest ranking female CALVINIST in 16th century France. Jeanne d'Albret, the Reigning Queen
of Navarre: the righteous Deborah of French Protestantism or the ACCURSED JEZEBEL OF CALVINISM???
Posted on Monday, March 15, 2021 - 9:50 am:

Daniel Gorman (Heinrich) Juan Jeanniton: "The best way to repair the breach in the LCMS adult-male-only voter church polity is to REJECT the seemingly plausible argument of "virtual representation".
Senior Member The best way to repair the breach in the WELS adult-male-only voter church polity is to REJECT the seemingly plausible argument of "virtual representation"."
Username: Heinrich

Post Number: 4502 Some practical ways to oppose "virtual representation" if you a member of a Lutheran congregation:
Registered: 11-2004
1. Speak to your pastor in private concerning the pure doctrine of headship as taught by scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. Discuss the threat to Christ's headship posed by worldly doctrines
like "virtual representation".

2. If you are a member of a "supreme" all male voters assembly, publicly condemn any attempt to justify all male voting with an appeal to "virtual representation".

3. If you are a member of a feminist voters assembly, you should immediately resign. You can't be member of an assembly whose very existence is an affront to the 4th Commandment. You should
tell no one the reason for your resignation except the pastor lest you cause schism within a church (Of the Power and Jurisdiction of Bishops, 60).

4. If your church persists in a headship error that touches the foundation (true knowledge of Christ and faith), you should resign:

"And this Church is properly the pillar of the truth, 1 Tim. 3, 15. For it retains the pure Gospel, and, as Paul says, 1 Cor. 3, 11 [: Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus
Christ, the foundation, i.e., the true knowledge of Christ and faith." Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Of the Church
Posted on Monday, March 15, 2021 - 11:43 am:

Juan Jeanniton Mr. Gorman, for the sake of summarization, can you list all the prooftexts from the Bible and Lutheran Confessions which clearly teach that in the local congregation, "nobody votes for a family, but
(Casusconscientiae) for himself only"?
Member
Username: Casusconscientiae In an earlier post, http://www.lutherquest.org/cgi-bin/discus40/show.c gi?tpc=13&post=310904#POST310904, the Rev. Cascione replied:
Post Number: 93
Registered: 2-2021
quote:

The answer is that the unit of representation in Walther’s polity is based on the individual and not the family because in the New Testament salvation is identified by baptism. In
Israel only the males were circumcised. Females were automatically born into the congregation of Israel, unless of course they renounce the God of Israel. There is nothing about
this in the Lutheran Confessions. This is from the Bible. Yes, there are cases where the New Testament refers to the salvation of the whole family, but each member of the family
had to be baptized. (The Baptists are wrong when they say this does not include infants.) No one can be baptized for another. Thus, the Israelite concept of family is directed by
Mosaic Law, but not in the New Testament.

Also, the Rev. Cascione replied - http://www.lutherquest.org/cgi-bin/discus40/show.c gi?tpc=13&post=310949#POST310949 -

quote:

No one votes for a family or anyone else, but for himself only.

Can you provide all the prooftexts from the Bible and Lutheran Confessions to substantiate C. F. W. Walther's belief that the the unit of representation in congregational voting should be the
INDIVIDUAL and not the FAMILY, and to substantiate Cascione's statement that nobody votes for a family or anyone else but for himself only? But there is something that Cascione himself said
that seems unreasonable to me: he said, http://www.lutherquest.org/cgi-bin/discus40/show.c gi?tpc=13&post=310909#POST310909:

quote:

In practice I regularly told women that their husbands can speak for them in the Voters' Assembly. I also 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.

I simply do not understand how that is NOT the kind of virtual representation the antifeminists and anti-suffragettes pleaded for their reason WHY the women don't even NEED to vote in person
(that reason of course being that their husbands, brothers, fathers, sons, and elders of the church can represent these women in the voters' assembly). And just as if THAT had not been bad
enough, Cascione also said, "Women also have the right to object to any candidate on a Call List" - but I have to keep reminding him and many other LutherQuest members that NEVER DID I
PLEAD EVEN ONCE that WOMEN SHOULD BE GIVEN THE RIGHT TO PUBLICLY ADDRESS VOTERS' ASSEMBLIES OF THE LOCAL CONGREGATION IN AN AUDIBLE VOICE! On the
contrary, I had SPECIFICALLY devised all 3 of these cases of conscience to make the assumption that 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 and 1 Timothy 2:11/12 apply today EXACTLY AS WRITTEN.
Accordingly, I would recommend that they should merely write a letter of petition to the Voters' Assembly on paper, and in that letter, write down their objections to the candidate on the Call List.
There is no need to publicly deliver the objection by word of mouth loud enough for the congregation to hear. But to get back to the topic on point, all I need are the proofexts one by one from the
Bible and Lutheran Confessions to substantiate Cascione's own candid confession that "No one votes for a family or anyone else, but for himself only". That is what I need.
Posted on Monday, March 15, 2021 - 12:42 pm:

Daniel Gorman (Heinrich) Juan Jeanniton: "Mr. Gorman, for the sake of summarization, can you list all the prooftexts from the Bible and Lutheran Confessions which clearly teach that in the local congregation, "nobody
Senior Member votes for a family, but for himself only"?"
Username: Heinrich

Post Number: 4503 That's Pr. Cascione view not mine. Voters represent Christ who is the head of every man:
Registered: 11-2004
"I believe that there is upon earth a little holy group and congregation of pure saints, under one head, even Christ, called together by the Holy Ghost in one faith, one mind, and understanding, with
manifold gifts, yet agreeing in love, without sects or schisms." Large Catechism, Of the Creed, Third Article

"Therefore the Church can never be better governed and preserved than if we all live under one head, Christ..." Smalcald Articles, II, Of the Papacy

"There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in the one hope of your calling. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all,
and in us all." Eph 4:4-6, EHV

"Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.” Matt 4:10, EHV

"Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” John 20:28, EHV

"I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man" 1 Cor 11:3, EHV

Posted on Monday, March 15, 2021 - 12:48 pm:

Juan Jeanniton Mr. Gorman, you said: "Juan Jeanniton: "Mr. Gorman, for the sake of summarization, can you list all the prooftexts from the Bible and Lutheran Confessions which clearly teach that in the local
(Casusconscientiae) congregation, "nobody votes for a family, but for himself only"?"
Member
Username: Casusconscientiae That's Pr. Cascione view not mine."
Post Number: 94
Registered: 2-2021 Well then, when the Rev. Cascione returns to this LutherQuest forum, he should provide the prooftexts one by one from the Bible and Lutheran Confessions to substantiate his statement that "No
one votes for a family or anyone else, but for himself only". So far, when he was present with his, he FAILED to provide the necessary prooftexts. The reason why I ask for these prooftext is
because I want to be sure that Cascione was not relying merely on human rationalistic reasons but sound Scriptural and Confessional reasons.
Posted on Monday, March 15, 2021 - 1:47 pm:

Juan Jeanniton Good news! I now have started a new thread entitled "Cases of Conscience Concerning Jeanne d'Albret" in this link: http://www.lutherquest.org/cgi-bin/discus40/show.c gi?
(Casusconscientiae) tpc=13&post=311173#POST311173. The inner title is "JEANNE D'ALBRET, QUEEN OF NAVARRE: RIGHTEOUS DEBORAH OF THE FRENCH PROTESTANT HUGUENOTS OR ACCURSED
Member JEZEBEL OF CALVINISM???", and whatever other assumptions it makes, it will CONTINUE to make the SAME 5 assumptions I have made in the 3 cases of conscience concerning the unit of
Username: Casusconscientiae representation in the Voters' Assembly.
Post Number: 96
Registered: 2-2021

Posted on Monday, March 15, 2021 - 2:52 pm:

Daniel Gorman (Heinrich) In the Kingdom of God, Christ is always Lord, Master, and Head. In the kingdoms of this world, Pr. Cascione's maxim may be true for representative type governments.
Senior Member
Username: Heinrich
"The power of the Church has its own commission to teach the Gospel and to administer the Sacraments. Let it not break into the office of another; let it not transfer the kingdoms of this world; let it
Post Number: 4504 not abrogate the laws of civil rulers; let it not abolish lawful obedience; let it not interfere with judgments concerning civil ordinances or contracts; let it not prescribe laws to civil rulers concerning the
Registered: 11-2004 form of the Commonwealth. As Christ says, John 18, 36: My kingdom is not of this world; also Luke 12, 14: Who made Me a judge or a divider over you? 1Paul also says, Phil. 3, 20: Our
citizenship is in heaven; 2 Cor. 10, 4: The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the casting down of imaginations. After this manner our teachers discriminate between
the duties of both these powers, and command that both be honored and acknowledged as gifts and blessings of God." Augsburg Confession, XXVIII

Posted on Monday, March 15, 2021 - 6:21 pm:

Juan Jeanniton And for the record, if any concept can be proven, even on the grounds of reason, science, and philosophy, to have a natural and inherent tendency to produce results contrary to the teachings of
(Casusconscientiae) the Bible and Lutheran Confessions, then the entire concept is wrong and must be rejected. It is a fundamental principle of the interpretation and obligation of the divine laws, that when anything is
Member forbidden by the divine law, all those things that cannot exist without producing that very sin as a natural, mechanical, or philosophically proven result are also forbidden by the same law. All
Username: Casusconscientiae
concepts that cannot be given the benefit of the doubt without logical consequences contrary to the divine law are also wrong and must be rejected or else that divine law itself is no longer of
Post Number: 102 binding force. The plea "Virtual representation" - in the sense that a woman is already represented by the vote of her adult male relative, and therefore doesn't even NEED to vote in person, has a
Registered: 2-2021 natural and inherent historically PROVEN tendency to favor the cause of woman suffrage: why? Not because those who plead in favor of this concept of virtual representation are motivated by any
desire to advocate Feminism and the Suffragettes, but because the whole concept of "virtual representation" in the sense in which the anti-feminists and anti-suffragettes plead in favor of it in their
efforts to prevent woman suffrage is a philosophical and juridical (yea, and even according to Mr. Gorman and the Rev. Cascione, a theological) impossibility (except possibly in a State in which
the 3 lowest de jure political divisions from lower to higher are families, clans, and tribes, and where adult males only are the heads of the said families, clans, and tribes; and especially where
these heads are not just heads in a family and kinship sense, but also in a civil, political, and juridical sense, like any head of state or civil magistrate), and therefore cannot be a valid defense
against the cause of woman suffrage. And the reason WHY this sort of "virtual representation" in the Church is a THEOLOGICAL impossibility is because membership in the church of Christ (and I
am not talking about the pietistic Campbellite sect which calls itself "church of christ") is by baptism and regeneration by the Holy Ghost and not family, gentilicious (i.e. of or pertaining to a clan), or
tribal affiliation, pedigree, or descent! Again: Cascione replied to me in an earlier post - http://www.lutherquest.org/cgi-bin/discus40/show.c gi?tpc=13&post=310904#POST310904:

quote:

You wrote: “The real question is whether the unit of representation in the voter[s’] assembly is the individual or the family.”

By the way, it is not “voter” but “voters’ assembly".

Thank you for the real question.

The answer is that the unit of representation in Walther’s polity is based on the individual and not the family because in the New Testament salvation is identified by baptism. In
Israel only the males were circumcised. Females were automatically born into the congregation of Israel, unless of course they renounce the God of Israel. There is nothing about
this in the Lutheran Confessions. This is from the Bible. Yes, there are cases where the New Testament refers to the salvation of the whole family, but each member of the family
had to be baptized. (The Baptists are wrong when they say this does not include infants.) No one can be baptized for another. Thus, the Israelite concept of family is directed by
Mosaic Law, but not in the New Testament.

Yes! Even C F W Walther understood that the concept of "virtual representation in the voters' assembly of a local congregation" in the sense in which the antifeminists and anti-suffragettes desire to
practice it in order to defeat woman's suffrage is a theological & ecclesiastical impossibility.

Add Your Message Here

Post:

Username: Posting Information:

This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:

Options: Enable HTML code in message

Automatically activate URLs in message

Action: Preview/Post Message