Steal These Graphics - Justification by Faith - Apology of the Augsburg Confession

Ottoman Invasion and Coffee. Part II of the Historical Lesson

bruce-church (http://bruce-church.myopenid.com/) has left a new comment on your post "Islam Helped the Birth of Lutheran Orthodoxy.":

And don't forget about the second Turkish invasion of our churches - coffee, sofas and ottoman's in the nave:

Faux Harrison mentions 2nd Turkish invasion:
http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2012/06/someone-has-sent-insiders-report-from.html

Latte church with sofas:
http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2012/03/melancholy-news-from-latte-church.html 

The barbarians are not at the gates now;
they are inside the temple and teaching the students.

Randy Hunter is a big cheese Church and Change guy,
promoted by WELS because they are much more confessional now.

***

GJ -

1529

The Ottoman Muslim forces failed to take Vienna in 1529, which brought their invasion of Europe to a halt. However, they controlled part of Hungary, so the country was divided between royal and Ottoman Hungary.

The 1529 attempt was foiled by unusually wet European weather, which made pulling the heavy siege equipment extremely difficult. The light artillery used against Vienna did little damage. The Muslims lost much of their equipment and many of their prisoners as they attempted to withdraw.

1683

This was the last attempt to take Vienna. The Muslim forces failed to protect their own lines. Polish General Sobieski saw his chance and drove his cavalry straight into the Muslim camp. The Austrian defenders poured out of the city to join the fun. In the panicked withdrawl the Muslims left behind all their artillery, their tents, their jewels, and their bags of coffee beans.

The tradition of the Viennese coffee house developed from that victory. To this day, the best coffee beans are Arabica.

Hebrews 3 and 4 Graphics. Lenski Commentary.

The Sharp Warning:
Harden not Your Hearts, chapter 3

Consider Jesus in the Light of Moses, 3:1–6.

1) This is the preamble which resembles that found in 2:5–8. Moses is introduced because v. 7–19 cite the terrible unbelief that occurred on the journey through the desert under Moses. Let this story find no repetition under Jesus! We should not think that Jesus is put in contrast with Moses so that the readers are warned to forsake Moses for Jesus. They are paralleled—both Moses and Jesus are faithful. As Israel should have been faithful to Moses, so the readers should now be faithful to Jesus. In fact, the readers have a greater call to faithfulness than the unfaithful Israelites had as far as Moses was concerned because here is one greater than Moses. The two are alike, yet when they are paralleled, the greatness of Jesus must be kept in mind.

Lenski, R. C. H.: The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James. Columbus, O. : Lutheran book concern, 1938, S. 99.

Do not Underestimate the Word of God, v. 12, 13.

12) This appendix is vital as the concluding word of both the warning voiced in chapter 3 and the promise given in 4:1–11. It is so essential because not only the warning and the promise are based on the Word of God as being “my voice,” Ps. 95 (see 3:8–11), but also because all that this epistle contains from 1:1 onward (“God spoke”) and will contain in the following chapters is based directly on God’s Word. So the writer says: Let there be no illusion in you, my readers, regarding this Word of God and what it says about Jesus; let no one think that disbelieving or disobeying this Word is a light matter. The writer has dwelt especially on Ps. 95:11 (3:8, 11; 4:3, 4), God’s oath, a most terrible Word of God. He now stresses the full power of the Word in its damning force. He has likewise dwelt on Ps. 95:7b plus 11: “Today” and “my rest,” with all the promise that lies in this Word (3:8, 15; 4:3–8). This, too, leads him to stress the power of the Word, the blessed promise of which is so mighty.

Lenski, R. C. H.: The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James. Columbus, O. : Lutheran book concern, 1938, S. 139

On “High Priest” see 2:17 and 3:1; the addition “great” exalts his person and his office above all the Levitical high priests of the Jews and matches the fact that he “has gone through the heavens” in his high-priestly function, into the Holy of Holies of the very presence of God. “Passed into the heavens” (A. V.) is incorrect. In the Jewish Tabernacle the high priest passed from the altar that was outside through the Holy Place and so stepped behind the veil of the Holy of Holies. So our great High Priest, in a far more exalted manner, proceeded through what we call the created heavens into the presence of God. Only his greatness and this great act are now stressed and not the blood of expiation (2:17) and its effect although the title “High Priest” involves them; these points will be treated presently. As befits the new section of the letter together with the greatness of our High Priest, his name is added, “Jesus,” which again calls to mind his incarnation, his life, sufferings, and death here on earth, but with the mighty apposition “the Son of God,” which expresses his deity. Our High Priest is infinitely great in his person and his office.

“Having him, let us continue to hold fast to the confession!” We “have” him because of his having been made the great High Priest; God has given him to us as such. “The confession” recalls 3:1 where we are bidden “to consider thoroughly the Apostle and High Priest of our confession.” He, “our great High Priest, Jesus, the Son of God,” and all that lies in this designation are the substance of the confession; κρατῶμεν means that we are to continue to hold him fast with all our “strength” by confessing our faith in him. The writer admonishes himself as well as his readers. Yet the present tense signifies that he and they have been doing this, it asks for steady continuation. The implication is that the readers have given evidence of wavering, of giving up this confession. “Keep on confessing him with heart and soul!” is the appeal.

15) We have the strongest motive for holding fast to him. The writer reverts to 2:17, 18 where he calls our High Priest “merciful,” “himself tempted and thus able to help those being tempted,” who calls us “brothers” (2:11, etc.). Our weaknesses dispose us to give up our confession instead of holding to it with strength; here is the answer that lifts up beyond any such weakness: “For we do not have a High Priest unable to sympathize with our weaknesses,” the very contrary is the case; he knows all these weaknesses from his own experience, “having been tried in all respects in like manner (as we) except for sin.” Is not his personal name “Jesus” which he bore here on earth when in his humiliation he took upon himself so many of our human weaknesses? How can we then think that he does not feel with us (συμπάσχω - sympathy - suffer with) in our weaknesses?

Lenski, R. C. H.: The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James. Columbus, O. : Lutheran book concern, 1938, S. 149.