Wednesday afternoon: destructive storms

Started by Richard Johnson, August 19, 2009, 05:41:51 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

racin_jason

Quote from: George Erdner on August 20, 2009, 03:20:41 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 20, 2009, 03:11:35 PM
Quote from: Just_Here_For_CWA on August 20, 2009, 02:35:16 PM
Luther had three theological pieces: justification by grace through faith, Theology of the Cross and Law and Gospel. Brian, you cannot claim the first essential without the third one. And you do not do Law and Gospel, you do gospel reductionism by my long reading of your posts. Sorry.
I'm not claiming the first without the third. I've stated quite clearly in other posts about the necessity of the Law to expose sin and kill and the necessity of the Gospel to forgive and give new life. Without these, there is no justification by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

Yeah, out of one side of your mouth you say that the Law is important, and out of the other side of your mouth you say that the Law is what we think it is, not what God said it is.

It's pretty easy to be in favor of God's law when a vote of 66.6% changes it.



\

This post is very funny and pretty much sums up the week.
Recipient of the official Forum Online Get Us Back on Topic Award

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: racin_jason on August 22, 2009, 10:08:30 PM
Quote from: George Erdner on August 20, 2009, 03:20:41 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 20, 2009, 03:11:35 PM
Quote from: Just_Here_For_CWA on August 20, 2009, 02:35:16 PM
Luther had three theological pieces: justification by grace through faith, Theology of the Cross and Law and Gospel. Brian, you cannot claim the first essential without the third one. And you do not do Law and Gospel, you do gospel reductionism by my long reading of your posts. Sorry.
I'm not claiming the first without the third. I've stated quite clearly in other posts about the necessity of the Law to expose sin and kill and the necessity of the Gospel to forgive and give new life. Without these, there is no justification by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

Yeah, out of one side of your mouth you say that the Law is important, and out of the other side of your mouth you say that the Law is what we think it is, not what God said it is.

It's pretty easy to be in favor of God's law when a vote of 66.6% changes it.



\

This post is very funny and pretty much sums up the week.
Of course, we could go through all of God's laws in the OT and count how many we ignore or have changed, e.g., the seventh day sabbath; the requirement of circumcision on the eighth day, not letting a razor touch one's beard.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Karl Hess

Brian, how can you have an academic reputation and then ask questions that 7th grade catechumens can answer? 

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: Karl Hess on August 23, 2009, 12:53:27 AM
Brian, how can you have an academic reputation and then ask questions that 7th grade catechumens can answer?
Because it's the seventh grade kind of logic that I see presented in the post that hints that "We cannot change God's law by a vote". Well, we've done that throughout Christian history.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

hillwilliam

Built on a rock the Church shall stand, even when steeples are falling.

That would be "the" Church, not "this" church.

MaddogLutheran

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 23, 2009, 11:25:56 AM
Quote from: Karl Hess on August 23, 2009, 12:53:27 AM
Brian, how can you have an academic reputation and then ask questions that 7th grade catechumens can answer?
Because it's the seventh grade kind of logic that I see presented in the post that hints that "We cannot change God's law by a vote". Well, we've done that throughout Christian history.
Such as...
(wanting to know whether examples you have in mind are actually equivalent and relevant)
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

Scott6

Quote from: Karl Hess on August 23, 2009, 12:53:27 AM
Brian, how can you have an academic reputation and then ask questions that 7th grade catechumens can answer? 

He doesn't.

Richard Johnson

Quote from: racin_jason on August 22, 2009, 10:08:30 PM
Quote from: George Erdner on August 20, 2009, 03:20:41 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 20, 2009, 03:11:35 PM
Quote from: Just_Here_For_CWA on August 20, 2009, 02:35:16 PM
Luther had three theological pieces: justification by grace through faith, Theology of the Cross and Law and Gospel. Brian, you cannot claim the first essential without the third one. And you do not do Law and Gospel, you do gospel reductionism by my long reading of your posts. Sorry.
I'm not claiming the first without the third. I've stated quite clearly in other posts about the necessity of the Law to expose sin and kill and the necessity of the Gospel to forgive and give new life. Without these, there is no justification by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

Yeah, out of one side of your mouth you say that the Law is important, and out of the other side of your mouth you say that the Law is what we think it is, not what God said it is.

It's pretty easy to be in favor of God's law when a vote of 66.6% changes it.



\

This post is very funny and pretty much sums up the week.

I don't see one thing funny about it.
The Rev. Richard O. Johnson, STS

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: MaddogLutheran on August 23, 2009, 11:54:03 AM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 23, 2009, 11:25:56 AM
Quote from: Karl Hess on August 23, 2009, 12:53:27 AM
Brian, how can you have an academic reputation and then ask questions that 7th grade catechumens can answer?
Because it's the seventh grade kind of logic that I see presented in the post that hints that "We cannot change God's law by a vote". Well, we've done that throughout Christian history.
Such as...
(wanting to know whether examples you have in mind are actually equivalent and relevant)
I gave examples: e.g., seventh day sabbath, circumcision. These were extremely important laws given by God -- and failure to observe them was punishable by death. I will also add, before it comes up, I see nothing in the OT that distinguishes between different types of laws. They were all seen as coming from God and all were necessary for the life of the people of God.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

MaddogLutheran

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 23, 2009, 03:37:23 PM
Quote from: MaddogLutheran on August 23, 2009, 11:54:03 AM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 23, 2009, 11:25:56 AM
Quote from: Karl Hess on August 23, 2009, 12:53:27 AM
Brian, how can you have an academic reputation and then ask questions that 7th grade catechumens can answer?
Because it's the seventh grade kind of logic that I see presented in the post that hints that "We cannot change God's law by a vote". Well, we've done that throughout Christian history.
Such as...
(wanting to know whether examples you have in mind are actually equivalent and relevant)
I gave examples: e.g., seventh day sabbath, circumcision. These were extremely important laws given by God -- and failure to observe them was punishable by death. I will also add, before it comes up, I see nothing in the OT that distinguishes between different types of laws. They were all seen as coming from God and all were necessary for the life of the people of God.
Would you like to try again with something that didn't come from the apostles?
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

Brian Stoffregen

#85
Quote from: MaddogLutheran on August 23, 2009, 05:05:06 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 23, 2009, 03:37:23 PM
Quote from: MaddogLutheran on August 23, 2009, 11:54:03 AM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 23, 2009, 11:25:56 AM
Quote from: Karl Hess on August 23, 2009, 12:53:27 AM
Brian, how can you have an academic reputation and then ask questions that 7th grade catechumens can answer?
Because it's the seventh grade kind of logic that I see presented in the post that hints that "We cannot change God's law by a vote". Well, we've done that throughout Christian history.
Such as...
(wanting to know whether examples you have in mind are actually equivalent and relevant)
I gave examples: e.g., seventh day sabbath, circumcision. These were extremely important laws given by God -- and failure to observe them was punishable by death. I will also add, before it comes up, I see nothing in the OT that distinguishes between different types of laws. They were all seen as coming from God and all were necessary for the life of the people of God.
Would you like to try again with something that didn't come from the apostles?
I don't recall that the apostles changed the seventh day of rest. Acts 2:46 suggests that the first (Jewish) believers went to temple, and in addition, met together in homes for the breaking of bread.

For another law, we might consider Lev 19:28, which could refer to body piercing, and certainly refers to tattoos.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

MaddogLutheran

#86
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 23, 2009, 05:38:47 PM
Quote from: MaddogLutheran on August 23, 2009, 05:05:06 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 23, 2009, 03:37:23 PM
Quote from: MaddogLutheran on August 23, 2009, 11:54:03 AM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 23, 2009, 11:25:56 AM
Because it's the seventh grade kind of logic that I see presented in the post that hints that "We cannot change God's law by a vote". Well, we've done that throughout Christian history.
Such as...
(wanting to know whether examples you have in mind are actually equivalent and relevant)
I gave examples: e.g., seventh day sabbath, circumcision. These were extremely important laws given by God -- and failure to observe them was punishable by death. I will also add, before it comes up, I see nothing in the OT that distinguishes between different types of laws. They were all seen as coming from God and all were necessary for the life of the people of God.
Would you like to try again with something that didn't come from the apostles?
I don't recall that the apostles changed the seventh day of rest. Acts 2:46 suggests that the first (Jewish) believers went to temple, and in addition, met together in homes for the breaking of bread.

For another law, we might consider Lev 19:28, which could refer to body piercing, and certainly refers to tattoos.
Well, since observing the sabbath was strictly a Jewish thing, and if it had been decided that one need not become a Jew to be also a Christian, then it naturally follows that the particular customs about observing the Jewish sabbath would fall away, as Gentiles became the dominant in the church.  But you haven't articulated exactly when a vote on changing this sabbath law might have occurred, unless you are referring to the Jerusalem council, which most certainly involved the apostles.  I would have thought that given your sweeping statement of "throughout Christian history", you would have given other such examples beyond apostolic times, instead of appeals to shellfish.  My point is that the apostles and their deputies had a divine mandate to sort out the ordering of the church, and our creedal confession professes membership in their apostolic church.  Their resolutions bind us, just as later generations closed the canon and developed the Nicene Creed to settle later controversy.  I realize you and everyone knows all this, I'm just laying down some markers here.  And by the way, I'm not ignoring your "nothing in the OT that distinguishes between different types of laws", just biding my time without accepting your premise.
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: MaddogLutheran on August 23, 2009, 08:30:27 PM
Well, since observing the sabbath was strictly a Jewish thing,
All of God's laws in the Old Testament -- the Jewish scriptures -- are Jewish things. In addition, that isn't the issue. Is it God's law or not? Have we changed it or not?

QuoteBut you haven't articulated exactly when a vote on changing this sabbath law might have occurred,
I don't know that a vote occurred. I only note that we have changed God's law. The seventh day is no longer a day of rest.

QuoteMy point is that the apostles and their deputies had a divine mandate to sort out the ordering of the church, and our creedal confession professes membership in their apostolic church.  Their resolutions bind us,
They do!!! Do you consider yourself bound by all four prohibitions adopted by the Jerusalem council in Acts 15?

Quotejust as later generations closed the canon and developed the Nicene Creed to settle later controversy. 
Hmmm, that canon included the Apocrypha. Who decided to leave it out? Especially in our recent Lutheran study Bibles from AF & CPH. (Actually, Lutherans do not have a closed canon.)

You said nothing about tattoos. Was that God's law. Have we changed it?
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

FatherWilliam57

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 23, 2009, 08:48:35 PM
Hmmm, that canon included the Apocrypha. Who decided to leave it out? Especially in our recent Lutheran study Bibles from AF & CPH.

Thanks for the heads up on that one.  I haven't had time to investigate the new study Bible from AF.  Considering we held two fine adult studies this past year in my congregation on Tobit and Judith, I now know that particular study Bible is probably not for me.
The Rev. William B. Henry, Jr.
Interim Pastor, St. Peter's Lutheran Church, Evans City, PA
"Put on the whole armor of God."

MaddogLutheran

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 23, 2009, 08:48:35 PM
Quote from: MaddogLutheran on August 23, 2009, 08:30:27 PM
Well, since observing the sabbath was strictly a Jewish thing,
All of God's laws in the Old Testament -- the Jewish scriptures -- are Jewish things. In addition, that isn't the issue. Is it God's law or not? Have we changed it or not?

QuoteBut you haven't articulated exactly when a vote on changing this sabbath law might have occurred,
I don't know that a vote occurred. I only note that we have changed God's law. The seventh day is no longer a day of rest.

QuoteMy point is that the apostles and their deputies had a divine mandate to sort out the ordering of the church, and our creedal confession professes membership in their apostolic church.  Their resolutions bind us,
They do!!! Do you consider yourself bound by all four prohibitions adopted by the Jerusalem council in Acts 15?

Quotejust as later generations closed the canon and developed the Nicene Creed to settle later controversy. 
Hmmm, that canon included the Apocrypha. Who decided to leave it out? Especially in our recent Lutheran study Bibles from AF & CPH. (Actually, Lutherans do not have a closed canon.)

You said nothing about tattoos. Was that God's law. Have we changed it?
1.  There is natural law written on the heart of everyone, God's intent for creation, and then there is the law of the Old Covenant, specifically binding on the Jewish people, which became necessary as a result of the Fall and part and parcel of making them His Chosen People.  The people of the New Covenant have been set free from such observation as way to get right with God.
2.  The canon.  Has anybody dared suggest an addition to it?  (Maybe the most recent ELCA social statement?)  That was my meaning on it being closed.  Whether some publishing house, or even church body, prints or omits the Apocrypha, is of little consequence.  Even Lutherans who do not generally accept it would not deny its existence.
3.  Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on Acts 15.  Since I profess there is one holy catholic and apostolic church, and the Reformation controversies did not include the finer points of that chapter, I'll let that pass.

But if you can't provide other examples where we voted to change God's law, I'm content to let this rest.
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk