Yet we are often regaled with anecdotes of one LCMS pastor or one LCMS congregation that shows how bad the LCMS is.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.Show posts Menu
Quote from: Charles Austin on February 22, 2024, 01:56:27 PMSo you reserve your contempt for those you declare non-Lutheran?Charles. RDPreus has not declared contempt for anyone. It is you who have decided that he is contemptuous. In the past, I have called some of your interactions with me and others as showing contempt. You have disputed that characterization. Are we to take it that you have abrogated to yourself the position of sole arbiter of what is and what is not contempt on this forum?
Quote from: John Mundinger on February 22, 2024, 06:36:20 AMOver the course of my ministry I have collaborated with pastors from many different churches, including the ELCA. I've usually participated in the local ministerial association, served as a part of their volunteer police chaplain corps along with Methodists, ELCA, and I'm not really sure what.Quote from: RDPreus on February 21, 2024, 06:18:16 PMI don't mean to be rude when I say that I do not regard the ELCA as a Lutheran church body. Most LCMS pastors I know agree.
I'm not surprised to hear you say that. Regardless, the evangelicals with whom the LCMS collaborated in the crafting of their understanding of inerrancy weren't Lutheran. If LCMS can collaborate with them they should likewise be able to collaborate with ELCA in matters that do not involve pulpit-altar fellowship.
Quote from: John Mundinger on February 22, 2024, 09:58:50 AMhttps://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Power-Glory-Evangelicals-Extremism/dp/006322688XFrom the reviews of this book, it would seem that Tim Alberta is not exactly impartial either.
Tim Alberta is not ELCA
QuoteUsers on social media had been complaining that the AI tool generates images of historical figures — like the U.S. Founding Fathers — as people of color, calling this inaccurate.
Google said in a post on X on Wednesday that the AI feature can "generate a wide range of people. And that's generally a good thing because people around the world use it." But it said that the software feature is "missing the mark here," adding that the tech giant is "working to improve these kind of depictions immediately."
Quote from: John Mundinger on February 21, 2024, 05:33:50 PMJohn, so, you were introduced to Linsell in an LCMS Sunday morning Bible class. From your particular experience you know definitely that the whole of the LCMS derived our understanding of Scripture from him. Really? You can make such a definitive generalized judgment of us on the basis of one experience in one congregation.Quote from: RDPreus on February 21, 2024, 09:46:35 AM"Not as you define inerrancy," you write. But you know perfectly well that my definition of inerrancy is what the word actually means, and when the term is used to describe a view of the Scriptures that says there are errors and contradictions in the Bible it is being used dishonestly. Luther wrote, "The Scriptures have never erred."
Actually, I don't because the term has been used arbitrarily in application to various parts of Scripture. For example, I think Genesis 1 - 2 is better understood and a more profound statement of creation if it is read as metaphor rather than as literal, scientific fact. I suspect that most theologians who are not intimidated by historical criticism would agree. Yet, I suspect that you would reject those chapters as metaphor on the basis of inerrancy. Yet, I suspect that you read Psalm 23 as metaphor.
I agree with Luther that Scripture never erred. But, I think Luther would agree with me that the same cannot be said of practitioners of hermeneutics.Quote from: RDPreus on February 21, 2024, 09:46:35 AMWe Lutherans did not look to Harold Lindsell to teach us about the authority of Scripture. Our own theological tradition was rich in providing proof for this doctrine. It is true that many LCMS Lutherans worked with inerrantists from other denominations to produce a common statement on inerrancy at a meeting in Chicago in the Fall of 1978. It was the kind of ecumenical endeavor in which we could participate without violating the biblical prohibition of unionism.
Yet, I was introduced to Harold Lindsell in a Sunday morning Bible class in an LCMS congregation.Quote from: RDPreus on February 21, 2024, 09:46:35 AMWe Lutherans did not look to Harold Lindsell to teach us about the authority of Scripture. Our own theological tradition was rich in providing proof for this doctrine.Quote from: RDPreus on February 21, 2024, 09:46:35 AMIt is true that many LCMS Lutherans worked with inerrantists from other denominations to produce a common statement on inerrancy at a meeting in Chicago in the Fall of 1978. It was the kind of ecumenical endeavor in which we could participate without violating the biblical prohibition of unionism.
It's unfortunate that so many LCMS Lutherans spurn comparable ecumenical opportunities with other Lutherans.
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on February 21, 2024, 02:35:03 PMI find it meaningful and have tried to explain why. This will remain another of the many, many things we disagree about.Quote from: Dan Fienen on February 21, 2024, 12:06:53 PMThey are two different things. But why is it incorrect usage to assert inerrancy to the texts that once existed but no longer do?
I have never indicated that they never existed. They may well be inerrant, but I find that meaningless since we don't have any of them.
QuoteError in the Bible, no. Error in the KJV translation, yes. Especially when it comes to the names of flora and fauna, we just cannot in some cases be sure what the ancient Hebrew referred to.QuoteYou are the one who accused me of talking about unicorns when I wrote of the autographs of the Biblical books.
I didn't accuse you of anything. I used unicorns as examples. One: of something people talk about existing without any proof. Two: since they are mentioned in the KJV, is that proof they existed or an indication of an error in the Bible?
QuoteI study the synoptics as if the four source theory was a fact. That means I consider Mark to have been written first and used as a source by Matthew and Luke. I explore the ways Matthew and Luke have modified Mark to fit their purposes and/or their audience. I also look at what the later writers omitted from Mark. This does not change the belief that they are all the inspired Word of God for us - that God may be behind the changes they made from their sources.As a working assumption, I suppose it is not bad. I certainly would not count it as more inerrant than the Bible. I am inclined to think that the reality may have been even more complex than that. I also do not discount, as many do, that some of the Gospel authors (especially Matthew and John, maybe at least in part Mark) were also eyewitnesses and are operating also from their own memory, supplemented by other sources.
QuoteYes, I had read and shared the theory that Ebionites were the poor ones Paul was seeking to support in Jerusalem. It's a remote possibility.But especially as a remote possibility, I would not use that speculation as a reason to suppose that Paul was not interested in people having correct doctrine and so neither should that be a concern of ours.
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on February 21, 2024, 11:13:44 AMThey are two different things. But why is it incorrect usage to assert inerrancy to the texts that once existed but no longer do?Quote from: Dan Fienen on February 21, 2024, 10:32:45 AMActually, I do use the standard dictionary definition of inerrant, I simply apply it to texts that you apparently want to deny existed and do no longer exist in their originals, but about which we have abundant evidence and tools to make a good approximation of their original forms.
The existence of texts and saying that they are incapable of being wrong are two different things.
QuoteTextual criticism takes that manuscripts that we have, compares and contrasts them and seeks to reconstruct the original from which the manuscripts that we have were copied (or are copies of copies of . . . back to the originals.QuoteDo you deny that the original autographs of the books of the Bible ever existed? Where did all the ancient manuscripts that have come from? Do you deny, for example, that a writer, we will call him Luke for convenience, actually researched and assembled the material and wrote (or dictated) the text that we call today the Gospel of Luke? Or researched and wrote a history of the earliest days of the church into the history that we call Acts? You have written on occasion about how meaningful it is to compare the four Gospels and perceive the differing emphases and strategies of presentation of the various authors. If there was no original work that we now call Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, how can we talk about the intent of the author in selecting and arranging the materials that he did?
Of course autographs existed - but perhaps not in quite the same way we have. There are arguments, for example, that 2 Corinthians is the combination of three letters that were originally separate. It seems likely to me (and many other scholars,) that the original Mark did not include 16:9-20. I approach the ending of Mark assuming that he intended the non-ending ending at 16:8.
QuoteIrrelevant to our discussion.QuoteActually, rather than trying to talk about unicorns, about which none exist now and whose remains we have not found, our discussion is more like talking about dinosaurs. No dinosaurs exist today that we know of. But we have many, many fossils that allow us with a great deal of confidence reconstruct what they were like when they did exist and we can figure out with some confidence what they were like. Since we have no dinosaurs today, do you deny their existence?
I do not deny their existence, but an LCMS minister in a town I served did. He believed that the fossils that we have were created by God to confuse unbelievers.
QuoteYou are the one who accused me of talking about unicorns when I wrote of the autographs of the Biblical books.QuoteIf you want to talk in terms of unicorns, a closer analogy to my mind would be talking about the letter documents: Q, J, E, D, P, and the like. They are theorized to have existed, but there is no hard, documentary evidence that they ever existed as separate independently circulating documents. All we have are theoretical dissections of existing documents that, along with speculative assumptions, are used to dismember those existing documents into their hypothetical but nonevidential sources. Go on ahead and prattle on about unicorns, I'll look at the evidence that we have for dinosaurs.
It's a bit like finding dinosaur bones and then theorizing how they might go together based on what knowledge we have about animal skeletons. The evidence for different sources is found in our documents. For example, the use of YHWH vs. God. Two separate stories of the flood can be gleaned from what's in the text, e.g., one with two of each animal and the other with seven pairs of the clean animals. Such theories are based on the evidence that we have in the scriptures.
The four source theory for the synoptics comes from studying the synoptics. The attach chart indicates a way of viewing what is in these three books and their relationship to each other. Theorizing four source makes the most sense to me among the different theories about how these gospels are related to each other. The finding of the Gospel of Thomas strengthened the argument about the existence of Q that contained sayings of Jesus that was used by Matthew and Luke, but unknown to Mark.
Quote from: John Mundinger on February 21, 2024, 07:28:46 AMEvery profession and area of interest has a body of technical language, or jargon if you will, that is within the profession commonly understood with reasonable precision. Its use saves much time and effort by allowing single words to be used in place of the repetitive use of the whole paragraphs that those words represent. Problems arise when this technical language is used with non-specialists, or non-standard meanings (even though that meaning may be in common, non-specialist use) are inserted into the conversation without specifying the use.Quote from: Dan Fienen on February 20, 2024, 05:02:14 PMThis whole discussion has become little more than an exercise of willfully talking past each other and refusing to directly address the concerns of each other.
I agree. I'd also suggest that the consistent use of "buzz words", like inerrancy, Gospel-reductionism, etc. contribute to the problem. Such words might mean something to those who regularly use them, but they are code-words for whole paragraphs, the content of which doesn't get added to the conversation.
QuoteI think that I have been pretty explicit in describing how I use the term inerrant and why I apply that term to what I do. If you disagree with me, that is actually to be expected. But I have been as clear as I can about what I actually mean.Quote from: Dan Fienen on February 20, 2024, 11:38:56 PMApparently you know exactly what we should mean when we use the term inerrant and since what we say doesn't match what you know we must mean we simply don't know what we're talking about.
I don't know exactly what people mean when they use the term, inerrant. And, to be honest, it gets even more confusing when folks acknowledge the copy errors to which Pr. Stoffregen refers but still suggest that he thinks the autographs are "inerrant" (whatever that term is supposed to mean).
QuoteHow much do you know about textual criticism? As to applying the rest of the HC tools, in my experience much of those are intent not in reconstructing the original but in dismembering the original into the putative sources and redaction history. The reliability of the methods and assumptions of the various Criticisms is another discussion.Quote from: Dan Fienen on February 20, 2024, 05:02:14 PMIn contrast, for the Bible we have thousands of really old copies and partial copies of the Bible to compare. There is plenty of material for the textual critics to work with. While we do not have the autographs, we can come quite close to reconstructing them.
I generally agree. But, I do not understand how it is possible to reconstruct the autographs without employing all of the tools in the historical-critical tool bag.
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on February 21, 2024, 01:24:59 AMNo, I don't know what you mean by the word "inerrant," because it doesn't quite match what an English dictionary says the word means. I've been accused a number of times of making words mean whatever I want them to mean. However, I still use meanings that a Lexicon has for those words.Actually, I do use the standard dictionary definition of inerrant, I simply apply it to texts that you apparently want to deny existed and do no longer exist in their originals, but about which we have abundant evidence and tools to make a good approximation of their original forms.
You completely missed the point about the unicorns. Arguing that the autographs are inerrant is like arguing that unicorns existed. Since we have no actual autographs nor remains of unicorns, how can we support that argument?
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on February 20, 2024, 09:24:09 PMApparently you know exactly what we should mean when we use the term inerrant and since what we say doesn't match w hat you know we must mean we simply don't know what we're talking about. As to your last paragraph, huh? Have you decided that anyone who talks about Biblical inerrancy must believe that the KJV is inerrant so we either must believe in unicorns or accept that the Bible in errant. Sorry Brian. I do not accept that you know better than I do what I mean. Your refutation on my point refutes a position I don't hold.Quote from: Rev. Edward Engelbrecht on February 20, 2024, 05:36:18 PMIf I see dents and scratches on my neighbor's car, do I conclude that it rolled of the production line with those dents and scratches? Of course not. I understand the dents and scratches came later.I don't believe anyone here as denied the divine inspiration of scriptures. When the topic of inerrancy comes up, there is always some qualifications, such as "the autographs are inerrant" or "the message of salvation is inerrant." To me, it is twisting the definition of inerrant to fit our reality. Because of human sin/errors, our biblical texts and translations are capable of having errors. Thus, our Bibles do not fit the dictionary definition of inerrant: "incapable of being wrong." It becomes a theory about the autographs.
In the same way, the textual notes in Bibles don't show me that the divinely inspired Scripture is errant. On the contrary, they tell me much more about the problem of sin since sinners have subsequently made mistakes in copying them.
The variants argument does not alter the divine inspiration of the original texts. One should hold to what Scripture says about itself in Psalm 19:7--11 as traditional Jews and Christians do. (And when Jews hold to that, no one should try to trace the thought to "The Fundamentals" or call them fundamentalists. It's silly. It's clearly age-old teaching. )
Dan's comments above made me think of arguing that unicorns existed. (They are mentioned nine times in the KJV. Could that be an error?) Can anyone prove that they did not exist?
Quote from: Charles Austin on February 20, 2024, 05:49:39 PMPastor Fienen:The professors themselves opted out of that adjudication process when they defaulted on their contracts and calls. They removed themselves from the the authority of those "appropriate judicial bodies" and, as I recall, (hey, it was 50 years ago, memories get fuzzy) specifically refused to cooperate with any such process and refused to recognize their authority to adjudicate. Even if the Board of Control and Synodical administration had proceeded with those judicial processes, it would have been farcical without the professors participation, which they refused.
There was at least an attempt to deal with matters on a theological basis
But the professors remain innocent until proven guilty, at least, I think that ought to be the rule. Charges were never drawn up, never filed with appropriate judicial bodies in the Synod.
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on February 20, 2024, 03:55:44 PMThis whole discussion has become little more than an exercise of willfully talking past each other and refusing to directly address the concerns of each other.Quote from: MaddogLutheran on February 20, 2024, 01:39:13 PMI've stated for at least 101 times, read the footnotes in your Bible. They indicate errors in ancient manuscripts. They indicate possible errors in translations.Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on February 20, 2024, 09:58:24 AMAgain, I ask, which Bible on your shelf has no errors? [snip]
I'll say it again, for the hundred time. If you know what those errors are, please share them so that we can be disabused of the notion. What errors are there that are material to our faith?
Because I for one have no interest in having faith in a God that, having revealed to us mortals that we are disobedient to Him, would mislead us in his revelation to us. Deception does not grow faith.
Focusing on the possibility that the Bible might have errors is just a license to discard anything inconvenient to contemporary human desire.
I've asked for perhaps 99 times for you to tell me which Bible on your shelf has no errors in translation or choice of variant readings.
Quote2Pe 1:19-21 "And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."is the true origin of what was written, or they were simply religious men who, reflecting on their religious experiences and insights, wrote words that others later found exceptionally insightful and meaningful and then gathered them together and considered them in some way authoritative, is a matter more of faith than historical research. Even if we had those original autographs, there are forensic tests to discover the ink used, what exactly served as the paper, possibly even DNA residue from drops of sweat, tears, or blood, to give clues as to the writer or scribe; but there is no forensic test for direct divine inspiration.