News:


Main Menu

Recent posts

#1
Your Turn / Re: Women in Ministry
Last post by Charles Austin - Today at 08:13:23 PM
Pastor Eckstein:
then do you also view the following as equally silly: 
1.  God's Son being born of a virgin.
2.  Jesus changing water into wine.
3.  Jesus multiplying a few bits of fish and bread to feed thousands.
4.  Jesus giving us His very Body and Blood in the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper.
5.  Jesus healing a blind man by putting mud mixed with spit on his eyes.
6.  Jesus giving decomposing dead people life again during His earthly ministry.
7.  Jesus resurrecting the bodies of ALL who have died on the Final Day.
8.  God creating a New Heavens and New earth on the Final Day.  (Or will we have to wait around for a  billion years after being resurrected in order to wait for the New Earth to evolve to the point where it can support human life?)
Me:
1. Yes, I believe this.
2. Sure.
3. Yes, credible.
4. Yes. But we will fuss over a lot of things about how.
5. Yes, probably.
6. Ok.
7. We don't know that yet, do we?
8. See #8, or did I miss the Final Day?
OTOH #1-7 have, I guess some support from eyewitnesses or might not have made it into the gospel stories. We have no eyes on the ground in Eden.
And we do have the testimony of all those sciences you guys don't like.

#2
Your Turn / Re: Women in Ministry
Last post by Michael Speckhard - Today at 07:18:17 PM
Pastor Stoffregen, is there anywhere else in the OT where this large-scale version of parallelism occurs? Also, could you expand on Gen 2's vocab indicating that it's myth?
#3
Your Turn / Re: Women in Ministry
Last post by Brian Stoffregen - Today at 06:49:37 PM
Quote from: Rob Morris on Today at 01:12:23 PMTo your first point: Pro tip - when accused of historical arrogance, do not cite the Jesus Seminar as your counterpoint.

I wasn't quoting any of their theories about the Bible, but on oral communications. They are consistent with what other researchers find about oral communications and oral cultures.

QuoteTo your second point: as proof that the Toledoth couldn't be accurate oral accounts, you cite your belief about when written accounts began?

In conjunction with point one - what usually happens to oral communications over time - the long gap between Adam and any written records allows for many of those modifications.

QuoteTo your third point: I believe, based on what you have written here, that you have studied Scripture assiduously, consistently, and deeply. But I do not believe that you have studied it seriously. You have shown far too much willingness to pull the eject handle of later interpolations (even in the absence of any compelling textual evidence), of editors (despite the myriad problems that have generally resulted in the sidelining of the source hypothesis), etc. The first time a reading gets challenging to your worldview, you pull the eject handle. I call that unserious. Your frequent (and completely un-notated) switch between sophistry, trollery, and serious statement, with the shell game of always claiming you were doing the other, leads me to save time and simply assume you aren't being serious with nearly any of what you write. The fact that even when you are being serious, you are frequently espousing un-serious scholarship only furthers the problem.

I have read roughly thirty different commentaries on all of the Gospels. I have found that many of them support what I have found in studying the Greek texts of scriptures. Granted, sometimes I am being fanciful in this forum. It wasn't original with me, but I have pointed out the soft and man-bed in 1 Corinthians could be understood as an obese, couch potato. It's possible to interpret those Greek words that way; but not likely what Paul meant.

My personality type suggests and I find myself fitting into the typical behaviors loves looking at possibilities more than making decisions about the possibilities. Seldom in Greek Lexicons are there only one definition for a word. Why shouldn't we consider how some of the other definitions might fit in a particular context?

QuoteTo your last point: everything about the Hebrew grammar of Genesis 1ff indicates that it is narrative history. Beautifully structured and delivered narrative, but spend even 20 seconds comparing it to the structure and semantics of the Psalms and you can't seriously call it Hebrew poetry. It has been concluded differently because of its content, not because of its genre.
I'm suggesting that the beautiful structure follows a parallel pattern - not in the short parallels of the psalms, but in very large parallels of day 1 // day 4; day 2 // day 5; day 3 // day 6.

And nearly everything about the Hebrew words in Genesis 2 indicates that it is a mythic writing.
#4
Your Turn / Re: Women in Ministry
Last post by SomeoneWrites - Today at 06:48:13 PM
Quote from: Tom Eckstein on Today at 05:10:01 PM
Quote from: Charles Austin on Yesterday at 09:24:01 AMGet real, Pastor Preus, and look at the statistics of Americans who believe the way you do. The numbers vary, depending on how the question is asked, but probably fewer than 40% of all Americans believe in a literal genesis. Do you think people in your church body are totally outside those statistics. I don't.
   Name someone? You gotta be kidding. You think I would give you targets?
Nope.
   But I might humbly suggest, and will certainly understand if there is no response, how many LCMS pastors in this modest forum believe Genesis 1 is "history" as we know history.

Charles, first, I will speak for myself.  As an LCMS pastor going on his 34th year in the ministry, I certainly DO believe that Genesis chapters 1 & 2 are historical narrative - meaning that Adam was the first, real, historical, human male and his wife, Eve, was the first, real, historical human female, and that ALL humans are descended from them.  See:  1st Chronicles 1:1-54; Luke 3:21-38; Acts 17:26; Romans 5:12-21; 2nd Corinthians 11:3 - and please note that 2nd Corinthians 11:3 applies to those who have  your low view of Scripture, which is God's Word.

Second, I am confident that all the LCMS pastors in my North Dakota District believe as I do.

Third, I was taught to believe as I do by my professors during my years at the St. Louis Seminary from 1987 - 1991, and I can't think of any one of my classmates who challenged this view of Genesis and, in fact, I  heard many of them affirm this view of Genesis with their own mouths!

Finally, I am very confident that the vast majority of LCMS pastors believe as I do - although I'm sure there are a small minority who have opinions about Genesis that are not quite in line with the official LCMS position.

One last thing.  In a previous post of yours a couple weeks ago you said (and I'm paraphrasing) that  you don't believe in nonsense teachings such as "God making Adam from mud" and "Eve being made from a rib."  So, I guess this means  you have some special insight into how God ACTUALLY created humans?  Why do you doubt that God created Adam and Eve in the way His revealed Word clearly teaches He did? 

If you think it would be beneath God and beneath "intelligent modern humans" to believe that God made Adam from dust/mud and Eve from his rib, then do you also view the following as equally silly: 

1.  God's Son being born of a virgin.

2.  Jesus changing water into wine.

3.  Jesus multiplying a few bits of fish and bread to feed thousands.

4.  Jesus giving us His very Body and Blood in the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper.

5.  Jesus healing a blind man by putting mud mixed with spit on his eyes.

6.  Jesus giving decomposing dead people life again during His earthly ministry.

7.  Jesus resurrecting the bodies of ALL who have died on the Final Day.

8.  God creating a New Heavens and New earth on the Final Day.  (Or will we have to wait around for a
      billion years after being resurrected in order to wait for the New Earth to evolve to the point
      where it can support human life?)


     Charles, the fact is that God has done, does, and will do MANY THINGS that are beyond our comprehension and ability to understand or verify empirically.  If you doubt that God made the first human male from dust/mud because you think such a thing is silly, then why not doubt all of the above things I mentioned that are just as "silly" based on your understanding of HOW God must do things?

I don't feel any of these comparisons are necessary.  It's not an either or.  It's not a matter of doubting.  It's understanding that we have ERV's in the same game sequences, which is what we expect with common ancestry - One of thousands of things that are predicted by common ancestry. 



Quote from: pastorg1@aol.com on Today at 06:04:43 PMJust to pile on ...

Good old Luther said somewhere that if one thinks it impossible for Christ to become bread and wine, then how much more amazing that Christ becomes flesh and blood.

Peter (Distant relative of Adam and Eve) Garrison

It's not that these things are impossible, it's that the handiwork of God says something different.  You and I are distant cousins.  And so is every primate on the planet. 
#5
Your Turn / Re: "Plain" Reading of Scriptu...
Last post by SomeoneWrites - Today at 06:39:54 PM
Quote from: RF on Today at 03:46:39 PM
Quote from: SomeoneWrites on Today at 03:13:00 PM
Quote from: RF on Today at 03:10:00 PMI wonder if those people who died on the Baltimore bridge when it collapsed had faith in engineering and construction "facts".
That's not a relevant comparison and should be withdrawn. 

Quote from: Rob Morris on Today at 12:58:50 PMEveryone has faith, usually in their own minds and things that can be proven repeatedly using the scientific method. Sometimes even by hearing the Word and internalizing it. And, I think I'm living in the ALPB Matrix but I can't prove it.  I am just observing the behaviors. ;-)
You continue to equivocate terms and that makes communication difficult. 

Thanks for your opinion on the first quote above.  The second quote above is from me, not Pastor Morris. 

Edit to add:
By the way, did you have any comments about the 1517.org article that I excerpted from?  Lots of meat in it from my perspective.

And FWIW, I am quite well educated in science and engineering. But thanks anyway for the rainbow colors explanation. May the photons speed your way to provide light to the darkness.


Thank you.  I edited the post to have the proper quote.
The first part was a fact, the suggestion to be withdrawn was an opinion
#6
Your Turn / Re: Women in Ministry
Last post by Brian Stoffregen - Today at 06:31:41 PM
Quote from: Rob Morris on Today at 12:58:50 PM
Quote from: SomeoneWrites on Yesterday at 06:09:09 PMFirst things first, thank you for taking the time to engage with me. 

Quote from: Rob Morris on Yesterday at 05:44:08 PMYou've been instructed in the scriptures, but have rejected them for an atheist worldview. You are now here, speaking of those holy scriptures as being comparable to intentionally composed fantastical fiction. Yes, I take offense to that.

Rejected isn't the right word.  That's active.  I didn't choose what convinced me or doesn't convince me.
I understand how feathers can be ruffled.  There are many here that think I've been influenced by/taken over by demons.  That's putting it lightly.  I think that's why the disposition of the person is far more important to me.  The Hobbit is both fantastical, and fantastic.  It's an amazing book, well regarded, and written by a person of deep faith.  And the comparison wasn't a side by side, it was elements.  An author has characters that believe and act in certain ways.  God can use fiction, parables, examples, hyperbole, whatever. 
And at the end of the day, you do understand that I don't believe it.  I hope you saw the parts where I said there's no snark.  I'm sure you have your own way of engaging Mormons and the Book of Mormon.  I'm sure it would depend on that person if they got offended or not. 
That being said, I do apologize for offense.  At the same time, I can't take back what I said regarding the matter as I seriously think it's appropriate.  (and there we go into the circle of this paragraph)  I would just hope that you understand I'm not using it in a derogatory way and I tried to make that clear. 

I know our engagements on 1:1.  And I'm open to what you could say, but you need to overcome quite a bit of well documented evidence and you've not really addressed any of it.  I don't have faith commitments, and it should be evident that I can have my mind changed.  That's a good thing. 

My lack of belief in God is different from all of this, so let's make sure that's separate. 
I'm not trying to convince you of my world view at all.  All of my engagements here on the bible haven't had anything to do with Atheism.  Just like the topic of women in ministry.  I've been assuming God for that discussion, and the triune God at that. 



Busy couple of days, so this has to be brief...

For starters, when you jumped in with Pastor Stoffregen's comparison, it wasn't clear to me that you were intending a different point than his (which I will in its turn try to carve out time to address). I have frequently used Tolkien or, even more often, JK Rowling, as an analogy for how an author can create entire worlds with complete authority. Also for how an author is not bound by the timeline of his/her characters, but exists on a different plane entirely. This is a salutary comparison to make (when acknowledging its limitations).

Where it becomes offensive is if the limitations are ignored and the simple comparison is made between Scripture and fiction. That renders the ancients as nothing more than ignoramuses and fools. Foolishness and ignorance are far easier found nearer to home.

Not wishing to relitigate the 1:1 debate. My point remains (and to recap for Pr. Benke, who saw something on TikTok to the contrary) - there is no other way to simply state "In the beginning, God created..." than what we currently see in the text. There would be myriad ways to state something different if that were the author's intent. To make "bereshith" be construct requires ignoring the preposition, as there is zero evidence of that form ever occurring anywhere. The bar to prove an esoteric reading is nowhere near met. I said it over and again, if the verse read, "In the morning, Abraham rose..." not a single scholar would have raised a single question. No one would ever translate it as, "In the morning of when Abraham had already arisen but was still continuing to arise." Asking for further proof is like asking for proof that the sky is blue (for Pastor Stoffregen's sake I will specify: a cloudless, daytime sky at the equator in the absence of an eclipse or other cataclysm as beheld by someone who is not colorblind nor using some other language or dialect to describe the color ;) ). Other than looking at the sky and looking at a color swatch marked blue, what further evidence should be provided? The burden of proof is on the one seeking a different explanation.

I would be fascinated to hear your theories on demon influence as hinted in your message. Ever in CT?
Very interesting comparison. Is the sky really blue? The reality is, we see the sky as blue. Why? From NASA Science website: "Sunlight reaches Earth's atmosphere and is scattered in all directions by all the gases and particles in the air. Blue light is scattered more than the other colors because it travels as shorter, smaller waves. This is why we see a blue sky most of the time."
#7
Your Turn / Re: Women in Ministry
Last post by Tom Eckstein - Today at 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: RDPreus on Today at 06:08:57 PMRev. Austin, all of us LCMS trained pastors were taught Francis Pieper's "felicitous inconsistency" that Rev. Eckstein mentions above.  We do not presume to pass judgment on a man's faith when he holds to false and dangerous teachings.  We argue doctrine; not the spiritual condition of the one with whom we are arguing.  But you seem to want to make it personal.  If I say you disagree with Jesus on the historicity of Adam and Eve, you think I am consigning you to hell, even though I said no such thing.  Please try to keep in mind that when we say that you are wrong, we are not attacking you personally.  I have tried to explain on this forum why the historicity of Adam and Eve matters.  When I have done so, I have not assumed the role of Judge of other men's souls.

The fact that we in the LCMS won't invite you to commune at our altars and we won't commune at your altars might cause you grief.  You may think that the refusal to express altar and pulpit fellowship with someone is to judge him to be outside of the Church.  But it's not.  Go ahead and disagree with us, but please don't assign to me or anyone else a position we do not hold.  We do not teach that only orthodox Lutherans are saved.  Walther stood firm against Grabau on that issue a long time ago and we agree with Walther. 

Rolf, well said!
#8
Your Turn / Re: Women in Ministry
Last post by RDPreus - Today at 06:08:57 PM
Rev. Austin, all of us LCMS trained pastors were taught Francis Pieper's "felicitous inconsistency" that Rev. Eckstein mentions above.  We do not presume to pass judgment on a man's faith when he holds to false and dangerous teachings.  We argue doctrine; not the spiritual condition of the one with whom we are arguing.  But you seem to want to make it personal.  If I say you disagree with Jesus on the historicity of Adam and Eve, you think I am consigning you to hell, even though I said no such thing.  Please try to keep in mind that when we say that you are wrong, we are not attacking you personally.  I have tried to explain on this forum why the historicity of Adam and Eve matters.  When I have done so, I have not assumed the role of Judge of other men's souls.

The fact that we in the LCMS won't invite you to commune at our altars and we won't commune at your altars might cause you grief.  You may think that the refusal to express altar and pulpit fellowship with someone is to judge him to be outside of the Church.  But it's not.  Go ahead and disagree with us, but please don't assign to me or anyone else a position we do not hold.  We do not teach that only orthodox Lutherans are saved.  Walther stood firm against Grabau on that issue a long time ago and we agree with Walther. 
#9
Your Turn / Re: Women in Ministry
Last post by pastorg1@aol.com - Today at 06:04:43 PM
Just to pile on ...

Good old Luther said somewhere that if one thinks it impossible for Christ to become bread and wine, then how much more amazing that Christ becomes flesh and blood.

Peter (Distant relative of Adam and Eve) Garrison
#10
Your Turn / Re: Women in Ministry
Last post by Tom Eckstein - Today at 05:20:13 PM
Quote from: Tom Eckstein on Today at 05:10:01 PM
Quote from: Charles Austin on Yesterday at 09:24:01 AMGet real, Pastor Preus, and look at the statistics of Americans who believe the way you do. The numbers vary, depending on how the question is asked, but probably fewer than 40% of all Americans believe in a literal genesis. Do you think people in your church body are totally outside those statistics. I don't.
   Name someone? You gotta be kidding. You think I would give you targets?
Nope.
   But I might humbly suggest, and will certainly understand if there is no response, how many LCMS pastors in this modest forum believe Genesis 1 is "history" as we know history.

Charles, first, I will speak for myself.  As an LCMS pastor going on his 34th year in the ministry, I certainly DO believe that Genesis chapters 1 & 2 are historical narrative - meaning that Adam was the first, real, historical, human male and his wife, Eve, was the first, real, historical human female, and that ALL humans are descended from them.  See:  1st Chronicles 1:1-54; Luke 3:21-38; Acts 17:26; Romans 5:12-21; 2nd Corinthians 11:3 - and please note that 2nd Corinthians 11:3 applies to those who have  your low view of Scripture, which is God's Word.

Second, I am confident that all the LCMS pastors in my North Dakota District believe as I do.

Third, I was taught to believe as I do by my professors during my years at the St. Louis Seminary from 1987 - 1991, and I can't think of any one of my classmates who challenged this view of Genesis and, in fact, I  heard many of them affirm this view of Genesis with their own mouths!

Finally, I am very confident that the vast majority of LCMS pastors believe as I do - although I'm sure there are a small minority who have opinions about Genesis that are not quite in line with the official LCMS position.

One last thing.  In a previous post of yours a couple weeks ago you said (and I'm paraphrasing) that  you don't believe in nonsense teachings such as "God making Adam from mud" and "Eve being made from a rib."  So, I guess this means  you have some special insight into how God ACTUALLY created humans?  Why do you doubt that God created Adam and Eve in the way His revealed Word clearly teaches He did? 

If you think it would be beneath God and beneath "intelligent modern humans" to believe that God made Adam from dust/mud and Eve from his rib, then do you also view the following as equally silly: 

1.  God's Son being born of a virgin.

2.  Jesus changing water into wine.

3.  Jesus multiplying a few bits of fish and bread to feed thousands.

4.  Jesus giving us His very Body and Blood in the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper.

5.  Jesus healing a blind man by putting mud mixed with spit on his eyes.

6.  Jesus giving decomposing dead people life again during His earthly ministry.

7.  Jesus resurrecting the bodies of ALL who have died on the Final Day.

8.  God creating a New Heavens and New earth on the Final Day.  (Or will we have to wait around for a
      billion years after being resurrected in order to wait for the New Earth to evolve to the point
      where it can support human life?)


     Charles, the fact is that God has done, does, and will do MANY THINGS that are beyond our comprehension and ability to understand or verify empirically.  If you doubt that God made the first human male from dust/mud because you think such a thing is silly, then why not doubt all of the above things I mentioned that are just as "silly" based on your understanding of HOW God must do things?

Charles, one last thing.  I agree with Peter that the LCMS is NOT saying that those who question whether Genesis 1 is literal history have lost "saving faith" in Christ.  But we ARE saying that having "saving faith" in Christ is inconsistent with NOT believing what the rest of Scripture and Jesus Himself believed about Genesis and creation.  This is what Francis Pieper called the "felicitous inconsistency."  However, the spiritual danger of having "felicitous inconsistency" is that, like yeast, it can work through a whole batch of dough with the result that the ENTIRE teaching of Scripture - including what it says about the person and work of Christ! - is eventually rejected because it is viewed as being just as "silly" as believing that Genesis 1 is literal history.
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk