March 16th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Seminarian jWinters writes in a comment to the previous post, “Treating Sin“:
I was asking especially about the idea of reading to a child within womb as being efficacious for that child. So basically, if ya read John 3:16 loud into your wife’s pregnant belly - is something happening there?I guess I just had never encountered that specific thought before. It pushed me into thinking about a child who dies in the womb.
The idea of the Word being efficacious in situations where the listener may not understand the text baffles the mind. One may conclude that we should be playing Old Testament Hebrew or New Testament Greek or Aramaic in the background while we work, because if understanding the text isn’t required, we might as well get it from the source text. Personally, I prefer to know consciously what I’m hearing.
And yet as Chaz quoting Dr. Scaer says, there is “abundant Scriptural teaching that infants can have faith before they are born.” The John the Baptist story is an example. Matthew 21:16 (context) has Jesus quoting, “Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise.” There may be other and better references that defy the simple text search.
I think we have to leave the possibility open, without establishing a precept of man such as Limbo. We are to do what is commanded, baptizing and teaching all nations, because God does save us in baptism (1 Peter 3:21). We leave up to God those situations where we can’t baptize and teach, and praying, reading, and hearing the Word of God is one way we can leave it up to him, right? 
March 16th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Now I gotta go find a recording of the bible in original languages… thanks for the idea…
March 16th, 2007 at 10:22 am
I think my question from those comments, “Or would this be pushing things to an “ex opere operato” (efficacious because the work is done, not because of what the work has done) sphere of understanding the Christian faith?” goes into this a bit.
There are quite a few sticky issues here as I’m thinking about it, and I certainly don’t claim to have a definitive answer quite yet.
One of these has to do with the nature of Baptism as Sacramental Word. So if God’s Word changes us in Baptism (because it’s water + Word), and the recipient of Baptism need not have what most of us would consider an adult rational understanding of what is going on - then why not throw the door wide open to the idea of children being saved in the womb through “in utero gospeling”? But then again we don’t Baptize in the womb, (unless you’re Tom Chryst’s weirdo gradeschool teacher) so we recognize that there is something different there.
Yes, there are Scriptural examples like John the Baptist leaping in the womb but I think its premature to say that Mary’s words (although we don’t know what she said from the Luke text) were one in the same with the Word of God.
The John the Baptist story is then a little troubling to a Lutheran theologian because it relugates God to working His power without means, or at least by means that we don’t see. He is God though, and I’m willing to have Him do things His way.
I’ll grant it’s a comforting and even Romantic thought that God’s Word being spoken to a child in the womb being an effective tool for Gospeling that child. I think it’s trying to put the ball in our court too early, however.
March 16th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
We don’t know that Luke 1 speaks of God working apart from means. Elizabeth was married to a priest. She was certainly in the synagogue regularly. John heard the Word of God and was filled with the Holy Spirit.
There is other direct evidence, also. Paul writes to Timothy (2 Ti 3:15):
“From infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures.”
The word is brephous… the little ones that are only a month or two old. Are we really able to make such a stark distinction between the born and the pre-born when we KNOW that the pre-born can hear?
It’s worth mentioning that Timothy wasn’t circumcised at this time… He didn’t get the little schnip until Acts 16:3 when he accompanied Paul on a missionary journey.
March 17th, 2007 at 12:23 am
Then there’s another question. What happens when a pregnant mother receives the body and blood of the Lord? Is it possible also for the unborn child to receive benefit from this? Wild speculation… but interesting.
March 17th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
I don’t think it’s unreasonable or “ex opere operato.” God’ Word is as much a means of grace as Baptism. You notice in our baptismal rites, the child confesses the faith in the creed prior to his baptism…Where did it come from?
God says “My Word will not return to me empty.” We believe that the Holy Spirit creates faith in those that hear the Word “when and where He wills” and we know that infants in the womb do hear.
March 17th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Hey Chaz, Tom, and Scott,
I agree that God’s Word is a means. In fact I have been a little vocal about preferring the way that Bob Kolb puts it “Word: read, spoken, and sacramental.” And I’m not saying that this whole “in utero” speaking of the Word of God thing is wrong, but I’m at least playing advocate the other way so that we don’t get too carried away with things.
Caveat: I think we’ll be fine as long as we realize, as Tom does, that these things are wild and interesting speculations but are not exactly what the Lutheran church teaches about how infants are saved. Sort of like I realize that my wild and interesting (at least I think they are) speculations about the emerging church stuff I write about isn’t going to be exactly what has been historically taught about how we “do church.”
Here are some arguments against pre-birth evangelism (via Word and Sacrament) that I haven’t really researched that well:
1. Practically - I don’t think it’s impossible to put water combined with Word into the womb, but it sure is a tougher option to do than a little sprinkle sprinkle sprinkle when the child is born. And I have no idea what the research on pre-birth hearing really conclusively states (anybody look that up?). However, I realize that this sort of thing may bring great comfort to parents who know that their child may likely die in the birthing process.
2. Logical policy ends - This could really be used by the “pro-choice” movement. It’s pretty close to demonic, but I can see the argument “Well, you saved them in the womb, so they’re going to heaven, now it’s ‘her choice’(shiver)” (Although I don’t think it would be put that crassly, of course). Just because someone is going to misuse our theology is no reason to not do it, but it is a reason to consider how we’ll go about presenting this.
3. Crux theologorum - The crux theologorum or “cross of the theologian” is the question “why some and not others?” Now, I’ll admit - it annoys me to no end that God hasn’t answered our prayers about this with anymore than a “Because I’m God.” I think historically we’ve just left this sort of thing up to God because we haven’t been able to “reach into the womb” with Baptism, but I’ll grant that new ages bring new questions and new revelations. I guess this kinda sums up what makes me so squirrelly about this topic - are we trying to wrestle the ball out of God’s court (saving pre-born infants through His plan) and put it into ours (our speaking the Word of God)?
4. Assurance - When we preach the Word of God, it’s not an incantation. Sometimes I wish it were. It’d be tons easier that way. But can we offer assurance of salvation to parents who have played John 3:16 on a speaker into the womb the way that we offer assurance through Baptism? I dunno. I know I’ve read the Bible to lots of people who still remain atheist and Muslim, and I’ve read the Bible to a few people that have converted. Like Scott said, I know His Word doesn’t return void, but it also doesn’t always boomerang back at us in the way that we think it should. (This goes along perfectly, btw, with what Chaz puts forth for us about II Tim 3:15.)
I guess this all goes to this:
a.) I don’t think it’s bad to preach into the womb.
b.) Does it give us the assurance of Baptism or even the assurance of that blasted “Sinner’s Prayer”? Nope.
Agree? Disagree?
March 17th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Chaz Says: “We don’t know that Luke 1 speaks of God working apart from means. Elizabeth was married to a priest. She was certainly in the synagogue regularly. John heard the Word of God and was filled with the Holy Spirit.”
Exactly!
Key point: … and was filled with the Holy Spirit“
March 17th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Rev. Chryst Says: What happens when a pregnant mother receives the body and blood of the Lord? Is it possible also for the unborn child to receive benefit from this?
I don’t see why not. The mother nourishes her infant through what she consumes. If she is nourished spiritually via Holy Communion it makes sense the infant is also nourished in kind.
March 17th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
The idea of the Word being efficacious in situations where the listener may not understand the text baffles the mind.
This may baffle unbelievers, but it shouldn’t baffle us.
When the Word of God is communicated it is not communicated absent the Holy Spirit. Even if the language is not understandable, the Holy Spirit has a way of making sure the message is properly translated (and/or communicated) in the most efficacious manner.
March 18th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Here is a little clip from Of Water & The Spirit by Schmemann that may apply:
“The new-born child belongs to the family. It has not ‘autonomous’ existence of any kind; its life is totally shaped and determined - in the present as well as in the immediate yet truly formative, truly decisive future - by this belonging. An the family- if it is a Christian family - belongs to the Church, finds in the Church the source, the content and the transcendent goal of its existence as family. Therefore the child who belongs to the family, and in a most concrete bilogical sense to the mother, thereby belongs to the Church, is truly her child, already offered, already committed to God. By recieving his life from the mother, being one with her, the child already recieves a life sanctified by and open to grace…”
March 19th, 2007 at 9:06 am
Emily,
I’m confused. I googled this Schmemann guy and found that he’s Orthodox. That explained a few things.
The logical conclusion of this would be that we don’t have to Baptize our children anymore, because they’re born into the promise like the sons and daughters of Israel were born into the promise.
This line is the most troubling: “By recieving his life from the mother, being one with her, the child already recieves a life sanctified by and open to grace…” No no no, by recieving his life from the mother, being one with her, the child is declared a dirty sinner because of the stain of original sin and must be converted through the waters of Baptism or someother monergistic work of God.
I can see parts of this clip being helpful in discussing why it’s ethical to Baptize infants, but there are some glaring un-Lutheran ideas here.
In Christ,
jW
March 20th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Yeah, he’s Orthodox but I never said I agreed with him. He seems to say, even though he’s talking about born children, that an unborn child might be saved by the faith of the mother. This line of thinking seems similar to the “wild speculation” of an infant in utero recieving communion through the faithful mother. I was just curious if you agreed with the one [an infant saved in utero by communion and the faithful act of the mother recieving it firstly], would you agree with the other?
jW, thanks for responding so kindly and in the manner of instruction.
Yours in Christ,
Emily
March 20th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Ah, now I gotcha Emily…
I’m going to go with a “no” still because of the original sin hump that I can’t seem to get over. Personally, I am much more comforted by knowing that we have a God who we can rely upon because He is merciful and because He can work outside of the lines of the Church (within reason). So I’m generally saying no to all of this stuff (in utero baptism, communion and Word speaking).
I do believe, as Luther did, that God is merciful and that we can and should pray for the unborn child to be taken mercifully into His arms if that child does not go to term.
How He goes about doing that is His business and I am equally reluctant to say that He could not work through the “wild speculation” means that we have been talking about. Maybe He does.
But at the end of the day, as I said before - it comes down to assurance to me. He has not promised to convert unborn children in these ways. Therefore I cannot, in good faith, promote these things as ideas that we have assurance in. We do have assurance in the…hah…the other “normal” ways.
No problemo for the response. I’d like to think I’m at least sort of friendly.
Have a great day!
In Christ,
jW
March 20th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
I agree these things (communion, baptism, or hearing the Word in utero) would be delving a little deep into the “ex opere operato” way of thinking or would at the least diminish the importance and assurance of the Sacraments.
I am curious though about what Lawrence means when he said “If she is nourished spiritually via Holy Communion it makes sense the infant is also nourished in kind.” In what way? I am not sure I understand it fully. If you believe you could have a pre-born baby partaking the full spiritual benefits of the Lord’s Supper, why would you not also offer a newborn baby communion? We Lutherans do not practice infant communion, so it would seem that statement would be opposed to our beliefs (though I’m sure the Orthodox would whole-heartedly agree with it). But perhaps by being nourished in kind he means this: that the sacrament is a nourishment and protection of both body and soul and while the child is unborn and shares the same body with the mother, the child also shares in the bodily benefits of the sacrament.
What do you think?
jW, thanks again for sharing your knowledge with me! It is a pleasure to have a discussion with you.
Yours in Christ,
Emily
March 21st, 2007 at 8:24 pm
The crux theologorum or “cross of the theologian” is the question “why some and not others?”
Huh? What’s wrong with, “Because some reject the Grace God gives them”?
Anastasia
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:07 am
Lawrence’s posts are interesting - unfortunately I have no way of getting ahold of him. So…I suppose we wait to see if he comes back to explain those posts.
Another thing that I thought of given the Lord’s Supper question, especially after re-examining Lawrence’s post is the question of recieving the Sacrament worthily. At least in the LCMS we say that in order for one to recieve the Sacrament of the Altar in a worthy manner, he or she must “discern the body.” (There’s a long exegetical explanation there - but it means both discerning that Jesus’ Body and Blood are there and discerning who is there with you and what they believe)
I’m not so sure that with this understanding we can go to the idea of the child individually recieving benefits, but your idea of sort of the corportate benefits because of sharing the same body…that may get as close to a Lutheran understanding of how this can happen as we can have.
Don’t thank me for knowledge..hah..thank Concordia Seminary in St. Louis.
In Christ, jW
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:14 am
Anastasia,
Well- first of all - it’s not my term (when I do make terms, I’m normally not pretensious enough to latinize them). It’s been around since before Augustine if I remember correctly. It focuses on the question of election, and can honestly be a question used by just about everyone - Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Calvinists, etc.
And Lutherans, Calvinists, etc have minor answers to the question. A Presbyterian would say, “because of the sovereignity of God.” A Lutheran would say either “They rejected grace,” or “They never heard the Good News.”
But those are all MINOR answers. The major part of the question is “Why doesn’t God just save everyone?” That’s the question that no theologian to this day has been able to answer. When do attempt to answer it completely (although partial answers that we have from Scripture that get to “how it happens” are certainly fine), we get into some real spiritual vanity.
Make sense?
In Christ, jW
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:47 pm
“Why doesn’t God just save everyone?” That’s the question that no theologian to this day has been able to answer.
Well, of course not, because it’s a non-valid question! That’s to say, the question contradicts itself. God has already done everything necessary for everyone to be saved, withholding His Grace from nobody. But if someone doesn’t WANT His salvation, then what? Shall He force me to be free? That’s exactly like asking why doesn’t God create a rock too heavy for Him to lift.
Back to what you term the minor question, why do some reject God’s salvation while others don’t? I don’t know. God knows. All I know is that if you do not reject it, you have no more merit than I have if I do reject it because there’s nothing meritorious about grabbing a life-ring tossed to you when you’re drowning. There’s nothing meritorious about doing what you were, after all, created to do, nothing meritorious if a bird flies or a fish swims. Or a servant serves (doing a very poor job of it, too!)
I also know that even if there WERE some merit about not rejecting Grace, that merit would never be enough to cancel out a person’s debit column, much less rack up any black ink.
I further know that even if not rejecting Grace were infinitely meritorious, that fact would do me absolutely not one particle of good, because salvation by it’s own nature (rather than by decree) is something un-earnable. It doesn’t work by merit, but by love and forgiveness. To try to merit heaven is like trying to pay to get into Sunday morning church services. It just doesn’t work that way.
And finally I realize that, in addition to the question being an oxymoron, the answer is none of my business.
But whatever the answer to the enigma is, it lies within the heart of Man — and not, as the Calvinists would have it, in God, for He desires that all should be saved.
Anastasia
March 22nd, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Anastasia,
Let me say this first - If I have done something to upset you, please let me know. Maybe it was the way I was reading it, but it sounded..well..angry.
That said, your response fits well within ortodox Lutheran thought. No problemo there. We’re on the same page. The only merit that we claim is the merit of Christ which is ours because He has seen it fit to give to us (and we have not denied Him giving us this gift).
The question “Why some and not others” however, is normally applied to people in situations where the person in question is not put into a Word-connected place. The classic example of this is the tribal person who lives his or her entire life without ever hearing the Gospel. That’s why I chose to bring it up in a discussion about an in utero child, who could also be seen as far away from being able to experience grace through the normal avenues.
Keeping this all within the frame of this post - “Salvation In Utero” or in utero evangelism - are you postulating that the only reason that an in utero child who dies stillborn or is aborted will only go to hell if/when he or she rejects the gift of grace?
Based on your posts thus far, I don’t think you would. Still, given the point of this topic, that’s the only way that I can contextualize what you’ve said here. Help me understand!
In Christ, jW
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:10 am
First of all, my deepest apologies for sounding mad! I was very surprised when you said that, because I didn’t feel angry at all when I wrote. I’ll have to pay more attention to tone from now on. You certainly haven’t done a single to upset me; far from it.
You ask, “Keeping this all within the frame of this post - “Salvation In Utero” or in utero evangelism - are you postulating that … an in utero child who dies stillborn or is aborted will only go to hell if/when he or she rejects the gift of grace?”
Not quite. But this much is for sure: God does not withhold His saving Grace (Himself) from anyone. He is the God of *infinite* love. Thus, if God does allow an unborn child (or for that matter, any of us) to end up in hell, we can be sure is neither God’s preference nor because He in any way failed to do something for that baby that He has done for others.
I wouldn’t care to push the issue beyond this. God’s judgments are unsearchable. The fact is, we plain don’t know. It hasn’t been revealed, or at least not clearly enough for us to draw solid conclusions.
But then, my other point was, if we truly trust God, we really don’t need to know, either, do we? Not even if we are parents of unborn or stillborn children. If we trust God, that trust gives us to know that on the Last Day, when all is revealed, we will thank Him, from the depths of our being, for ALL His righteous judgments, whatever they may turn out to be. And we will agree that they are right (not that God NEEDS to be vindicated, but He will be anyway). And we will marvel at His unimaginable wisdom, and rejoice in Him Who will have far surpassed our expectations in *all* things. If we have that kind of trust, we can actually be comfortable not knowing all the answers we wish we knew.
My guess it that maybe we are in agreement up to this point. (?) That would leave the only remaining disagreement about merit. You claim the merits of Christ. Well, this much I’ll give you: if anybody could merit salvation for us, it would be Christ, Whose merit is infinite. It’s a question, though, of whether “merit” is even applicable to salvation in the first place.
Anastasia
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:09 am
Anastasia,
I think you’re right about Orthodoxy and orthodox Luthern thought agreeing up to this point. If I am right, the beliefs on salvation may be where we part ways. My understanding of Orthodox beliefs are that Christ died on the cross to restore creation and conquer death because of His great love. Is that correct? It is very different from the Lutheran view that the reason Christ died was to suffer God’s wrath over our sin in our place. Also could you explain more about your question of whether merit is applicable to salvation?
Thanks,
Emily
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Hi, Ellen,
On merit. I guess I am not sure I understand why Lutherans think God requires merit in exchange for salvation, rather than giving it as pure gift. God neither stands in need of anything from us nor, since He is Love, does He seek anything for Himself. (”Love seeketh not her own.”) So what is the merit thing about?
The bigger issue is what salvation is. For the Orthodox, the end (goal) of salvation is that we may be one with our Beloved. Sure, that’s what any lover wants, isn’t it? And since God is holy, perfect union with Him requires being made perfectly holy. Note that the goal is not to dwell in God as a means to perfect *happiness*. Rather, for any lover of God, to dwell in God, and He in us, IS already the goal, is itself our perfect and only happiness. And, well, in that way of looking at salvation, there just doesn’t seem any niche into which “merit” could. What I am supposed to do with it?
On the Crucifixion. What you’ve said about Orthodox understanding of Christ’s death on the Cross is correct if we want to put it in a nutshell. But as I’m sure we all agree, there are many, many layers of meaning in the Crucifixion. Here’s something I wrote recently to someone else on the subject. Sorry it’s rather long; you can stop reading here if you prefer.
Anastasia
Christ died to go down into Hades, which could not contain Him, and burst it open, and release death’s captives. (And this began the moment He died; Matthew 27:52)
He died at Passover to be our Passover Lamb. The Passover Lamb died to provide its flesh to feed God’s people, and its blood to ward off the angel of death. Our Passover Lamb feeds us on His glorified flesh and gives us to drink from the Fountain of Immortality.
He died to share our human lot to the last, bitter dregs, and to redeem it. “Whatever is not assumed is not healed.”
He died to tread that dark path before us, so that now, when we walk it, we find it full of His Light, full of His Love, full of Himself. That makes of it something that is NOT death as we had known it, at all! That transforms death into the gateway to new life.
He died to exercise *perfect* love. Love cannot be said to have been perfect unless it has been tested to the fullest.
Similarly, obedience cannot be said to have been perfect unless it is tested under the most extreme conditions.
He died to exercise obedience and love and faith to the point of perfection. Now nobody can say, “Oh, yes, He seemed like a very good man, but He didn’t have to DIE like the rest of us! What would have happened if He must die? THEN how would He have behaved?” In short, He died to defeat satan, because satan cannot be said to have been utterly defeated unless you have let him throw his worst weapons at you.
He died to be a sin offering; that is, to offer to God this perfect love and perfect obedience and perfect faith, on behalf of all.
He died so that we could one day be baptized into His death (Romans 6:3,4) and so that having died with Him, we might also rise with Him, and live (Romans 6:5). He died to escape from the Law’s jurisdiction, not because He needed to, but because we need that place, which is within His bosom, where the Law cannot reach. (See the first half of Romans 7.) That’s how He took the handwriting that was against us and nailed it to the Cross.
In short, He sacrificed Himself to give us LIFE. He Himself says it is for our life. John 3:14-15; “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.” For emphasis, He repeats this in the next verse, the famous verse 16.
March 24th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Anastasia,
I put our beliefs into a nutshell in order to compare and contrast quickly, but you are right that there are many layers of meaning in the crucifixion of our Lord. I think Lutheran thought agrees with all of the statements you made above (don’t worry, that wasn’t too long to read through!) except we would perhaps state “He died to be a sin offering; that is, to offer to God this perfect love and perfect obedience and perfect faith, on behalf of all” a little differently. Jesus did offer to God perfect faith and obedience, but as a sin offering He also took all of our sins and suffered the death that we deserved. This is not a matter of merit but rather of atonement. This is also where Lutherans put the greatest emphasis. I am curious to see if you would agree that Christ took the sins of humanity to the cross since you said “He took the handwriting that was against us and nailed it to the Cross”. Maybe Orthodox and Lutheran beliefs (concerning the crucifixion) are not so different except only in where we choose to place emphasis?
March 24th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Hi again, EMILY, not Ellen (sorry!)
I’ll certainly grant you, as I trust every Christian will, that Christ did not deserve the death He died, and we most assuredly did. Still, on the Cross, there’s no use my papering over it, there is a big difference between Lutherans and Orthodox.
Col. 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; Col 2:15 [And] having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
By dying, Christ despoiled death. By bringing to death His own Self, like the sunshine flooding into a dark cavern, Christ transfigured death, making it the gateway to Resurrection. If you’ve done away with death itself, you’ve done away with the death sentence, the handwriting of the ordinances against us.
If you die, you are no longer subject to the Law. If Christ dies, He is no longer subject to the Law, and if we die with and in Him (in Holy Baptism), we are no longer subject to it, either. The Law is only for the living. The Law knows nothing of Resurrection; as far as it is concerned, we are dead, viz., no longer subject to the death sentence.
If in Holy Baptism we not only die but also rise with and in Christ, that is to say if we have communion in His immortal Life, we are by definition immune to the death sentence. Too late, O death! we have already been given immortality. That’s how Christ took the handwriting out of the way, nailed it to His Cross.
The passage doesn’t say Christ fulfilled that handwriting, but that He took it out of the way, blotted it out.
Lutherans do agree, don’t they, that Christ offered to His Father perfect obedience, on behalf of us all? And Holy Scripture repeatedly tells us that God is more pleased by obedience than by sacrifices.
That’s why it’s hard to figure out where punishment comes in. The Law requires *either* perfect obedience *or* the death sentence, but not both. If Christ offered perfect obedience not only for Himself but for all of us, how was punishment any longer due to us, or to Him for us? And as the Law does not require both, why would God demand both? So we don’t think that’s what was happening on the Cross.
Big difference, yes?
Anastasia
P.S. Still don’t see any role for “merit” in the scheme of things…
March 24th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
That’s alright! I’m used to people I know calling me by my daughter’s name mistakenly- Evelyn, Emily, Ellen, they all sound the same.
What Bible translation do you use?
Yes, I suppose there is a big difference after all. I think I understand your line of thought, though it seems to leave out the problem of sin.
What do the Orthodox say of this verse then, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” 2 Cor. 5:21
Also, I think that the differences in our views of the crucifixion may stem from our views of the fall of creation. If I am right, Orthodox believe that the fall of creation was death resulting in sin. Lutherans believe that the fall of creation was sin resulting in death. Therefore the work of the cross would naturally accomplish different things according to these different beliefs.
I am very interested in continuing this conversation, but perhaps we should stop racking up the posts especially since this is off topic from Dan’s original post. Feel free to email me at emilycolors@hotmail.com! I have several friends who were Lutheran and now are Orthodox, including Fr. Fenton who was my Father while I attended college in Ann Arbor, MI. I would like to learn what they “saw” in Orthodoxy, yet up to this point I am still a little baffled. Still, I have never run across an Orthodox Christian that was anything but sweet and kind and you also have lived up to this reputation in my book! So please, once again, feel free to email me to further our discussion. If nothing else comes of it, may it strengthen our faith and learning.
March 24th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
WordPress can handle the comments.
Perhaps, Emily, if you want to continue this on your blog, that would allow the rest of us to follow your comments. Please don’t take the conversation private! 
March 25th, 2007 at 10:35 am
I’ll do that!
I wasn’t sure anyone else was paying attention anymore. I am more than happy to have other people’s comments on this discussion. I am sure other people can phrase Lutheran beliefs much more eloquantly than I can!
Just to remind, my blog is http://www.thechildrenofgod.blogspot.com
I’ll have a post up by this late afternoon ( central time, that is ).
Thanks Dan!
Hope to see you there too, Anatasia!
March 25th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Thanks for the URL. I’ll post a reply there a bit later today. Please excuse the delay in answering you, Emily, as for us this is a double festival. It’s not only Annunciation(on account of which the fast has been relaxed some) but it’s also Greek Independence Day. That means staying after church to listen to the children recite the patriotic poems and sing their patriotic songs, all in Greek of course — and then going out with friends to eat (fish allowed!) and we’ve just come home. Now I’m going to have a sorely needed NAP, and then I’ll get with you over at your blog. Which, BTW, I’m looking forward to getting acquainted with.
Anastasia