News:


Main Menu
Menu

Show posts

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

Messages - Timothy Schenks

#32
Your Turn / Re: New LCMS Catechism -- A Question
December 15, 2017, 02:23:18 PM
Quote from: Steven W Bohler on December 13, 2017, 11:53:51 AM
From Walther's "Pastoral Theology" (Drickamer translation):

"A spouse may not seek a divorce because the other one has temporarily left out of anger, or because the other spouse has been angry and raging, even in a life-threatening way. Rather there may be a temporary separation, without remarriage, always being ready for reconciliation.  The apostle speaks of these and other cases in 1 Cor. 7:10-11." (p. 180)

The newer translation goes on to cite Luther on St. Paul with the conclusion "...they are to be reconciled or, if the reconciliation does not suceed, remain single. There may well be a case where they are better off separated than together, otherwise St. Paul would not have permitted them to remain single if they did not wish to be reconciled. And who can enumerate all the cases like these or make laws to deal with them? Sensible people must be the judges here."
#33
Your Turn / Re: LCMS kerfuffle
December 15, 2017, 02:03:49 PM
Quote from: SomeoneWrites on December 13, 2017, 10:17:42 PM
So yah.

I'm stoked when people understand and accept the truth of Evolution.  But at the same time, I still don't see how it's compatible with the confessions.  Even a caveat, like "all but this...".  The position of taking the confessions as a historical document makes sense to me, but that vow throws a monkey wrench into it.

I noticed that David Chytraeus, one of the writers of the Formula of Concord, signed the dedication page of his book Catechesis Davidis Chytraei (today's "A Summary of Christian Faith") with the words:

"From the academy of the city of Rosae on the day after the birthday of the Son of God at the beginning of the year 1568, which is the year 5530 from the beginning of the world."
#34
Your Turn / Re: LCMS kerfuffle
December 13, 2017, 06:39:24 AM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on December 13, 2017, 01:57:47 AM
Quote from: SomeoneWrites on December 12, 2017, 10:18:37 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on December 12, 2017, 05:11:43 PM
If it is in conflict with the Lutheran Confessions, I don't care.
Noted.  Though I'm curious why you put it in the conditional, because you're talking like it is without saying it.  If it's to protect yourself, then I understand.


With the addition of a midweek Advent worship to prepare and practice for, and a council meeting, I didn't have time to read through the Confessions to see if they might disagree or not.

Quote
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on December 12, 2017, 05:11:43 PM
I'm suggesting that the comment about the Lutheran Confessions is irrelevant.
It is only irrelevant if one doesn't teach that the Confessions are a true exposition of Scripture.  If they are said to be a true exposition of Scripture, then the caveat, I'm suggesting, should be clear and explicit.


If the Confessions are a true exposition of Scriptures, why bother with Scriptures? My approach is, if what the Confessions proclaim is the truth from scriptures, we will find that same truth by studying scriptures even if we never look at the Confessions.

Good luck in your new life of non-denominational fundamentalism then. There is a reason the Lutheran Confessions are named Concordia, and you most certainly know that.
#35
Your Turn / Re: And lead us not into temptation
December 12, 2017, 10:14:53 AM
Quote from: Pr. Don Kirchner on December 12, 2017, 09:40:36 AM
Quote from: Mike in Ohio on December 12, 2017, 08:29:40 AM
I suspect what Pastor Johnson means is that the majority of the world's Christians will be speaking Swahili, Chinese, and other languages which are not English -- as may already be the case.

Whew!

I was thinking of the 1970 movie Beneath the Planet of the Apes.
#36
Your Turn / Re: LCMS kerfuffle
December 12, 2017, 09:52:09 AM
I can't, but I don't need to and shouldn't have to use science to explain creation.
#37
Your Turn / Re: LCMS kerfuffle
December 11, 2017, 11:45:22 PM
I am a young earth creationist but I'm not a proponent of the idea that the Grand Canyon was formed to drain off the Great Flood.
#38
Your Turn / Re: New LCMS Catechism -- A Question
December 11, 2017, 11:25:13 PM
Quote from: Steven W Bohler on December 11, 2017, 11:36:56 AM
Quote from: Timothy Schenks on December 11, 2017, 01:31:55 AM
I would urge pastors to not throw away the free copy, since it belong to the congregation.  :D

1. I will not throw away the book; it has some usefulness even with its problems.

2. It is MY copy, since it came addressed to me personally.

My mistake then. The notices about the field test copy said they were being sent "to the congregations", not the pastor.  There had been a similar notice that a free copy of the Concordia Readers Edition was sent to each congregation a few years ago, probably also addressed to the pastor.
#39
Your Turn / Re: And lead us not into temptation
December 11, 2017, 04:57:51 AM
Quote from: Charles Austin on December 11, 2017, 04:17:35 AM
I ask: What does it matter which "version" of the Our Father anyone uses?
When I pray with Roman Catholics, I stop after "deliver us from evil."
If I am among Presbyterians, I say "debts" instead of "trespasses."
In one parish I know, the "new" wording is always used; in some, that wording is never used.
In international settings, we often had everyone pray aloud in their native language.
From a simple point of understanding and sense, I would prefer "forgive us our sins" and "save us from the time of trial," but if a gathering of faithful people uses the other version, I don't mind.
I do not see any major theological or pastoral issue that matters in any of the discussion about the wording of the Lord's Prayer.

Who said this was a major theological or pastoral issue? Are we not allowed to discuss anything without your approval?
#40
Your Turn / Re: Why Trump?
December 11, 2017, 02:35:58 AM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on December 11, 2017, 12:56:15 AM
Quote from: Dan Fienen on December 10, 2017, 11:46:44 PM
Perhaps I haven't been paying enough attention that I missed Roy Moore's trial and conviction for child molestation.  When was that?  Or are Republicans automatically guilty if acccused?


Would an LCMS pastor have to be tried and convicted in a civil court of child molestation before a District President would remove him from the clergy roster? In the ELCA, a reliable accuser (and especially if there are multiple accusers) is sufficient for disciplinary actions even without a civil trial.

He would most likely resign his call to his congregation upon being charged or arrested and the District President would remove him from the Synod clergy roster soon after.

What if he is found innocent? Matthew 18:16 does quote Deuteronomy 19, though, which adds "The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. The rest will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you."

Is this ever done?
#41
Your Turn / Re: LCMS kerfuffle
December 11, 2017, 02:05:00 AM
Quote from: jebutler on December 10, 2017, 03:11:43 PM
As an aside, Mr. Schenks, thank you for the reminder about the Chicago Theses. I had forgotten that part of our history! BTW, you might find it interesting that the LCMS and the ULCA never got past the issue of the inspiration of Scripture when it came to the Brief Statement. For some other background on how the Brief Statement came about and was to be used, you might want to listen to CSL course Controversy in the LCMS--1960s and 70s by Erik Herrmann and Gerhard Bode. It can be found under podcasts on iTunes. They discuss the origin and use of the Brief Statement during the course.

I will look that up. Thanks!  ;D
#42
Your Turn / Re: LCMS kerfuffle
December 11, 2017, 02:00:22 AM
Quote from: Dave Benke on December 09, 2017, 08:58:24 PM

d) This is an opportunity, then, for laity from all sides of the various issues to request inclusion from their local and national leadership in the Koinonia Process. 

Dave Benke

Pr. Benke, you keep saying that but the requests are still being ignored.  I've posted about this several times, but apparently you think I'm a liar.
#43
Your Turn / Re: LCMS kerfuffle
December 11, 2017, 01:56:18 AM
Quote from: Pr. Don Kirchner on December 09, 2017, 08:54:10 PM
Quote from: Timothy Schenks on December 09, 2017, 08:34:00 PM
It was not the entire district. It was just the pastors.  I have not heard if any circuit forums or congregation's were rebuked by the Seminary faculty for submitting similar overtures.

Although those on BJS seem to revel in calling the CSL response a "rebuke," that is hardly fair, Mr. Schenks. A rebuke "suggests a sharp or stern reproof." That's certainly not what the CSL letter did. Rather, it seems that, because the districts were combative about the issue, they want to characterize CSL as being equally so. That's simply wrong.

You have publicly stated that the Concordia Journal should retract the article. Why?

If the unanimous pastors of two districts are asked by Dr. Dale Meyer to change their vote it sure looks like a stern reproof to me.

How can a seminary faculty ask a pastors' conference that is already adjourned to rescind a previously moved, seconded, deliberated, and passed resolution to the district and synod conventions?  If they can be asked to do this, then the magazine could also be asked to retract.
#44
Your Turn / Re: And lead us not into temptation
December 11, 2017, 01:34:42 AM
Quote from: Weedon on December 10, 2017, 01:54:19 PM
I do think, though, that altering the form of THE lex orandi of the Christian Church is not wise, and would have consequences beyond even those we might be able to prognosticate. Better to leave the clarification of the text to catechesis. I also note that whereas LSB (inside back cover) offers the option of the "updated" language of the Our Father, it differs from the form in LBW by retaining: "Lead us not into temptation." I believe there was a time when little pasties were employed to "fix" the Lord's Prayer in the Worship Supplement of 1969. People care deeply about these inherited forms, and I think that's a very good thing.

Pr. Weedon, do you know if many congregations in the LCMS use the "updated" language version?
#45
Your Turn / Re: New LCMS Catechism -- A Question
December 11, 2017, 01:31:55 AM
 I would urge pastors to not throw away the free copy, since it belong to the congregation.  :D
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk