Pastoral Letter to My Bishops

Started by jrubyaz, August 22, 2009, 10:52:29 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

George Erdner

#150
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 25, 2009, 08:17:56 PM
Quote from: George Erdner on August 25, 2009, 08:14:21 PM
When you supported the Task Force Statements.
Uh, the Task Force submitted one Statement: Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust. Why is supporting that statement throwing out the Law?

If you put the beef over a very hot fire, the mailliard reaction takes place as the meat proteins caramelize and turn brown, generating wonderful flavors. Once the meat is nicely browned, reduce the heat and slowly cook it to an internal temperature of no more than 130 degrees. Remove from the heat and let it rest for at least five minutes before carving. That lets the juices settle, while carryover heat will take the interior up to 130 degrees. Slice thinly across the grain, and top with the caramelized onions we made earlier.

Dan Fienen

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 25, 2009, 06:47:13 PM
Quote from: George Erdner on August 25, 2009, 06:00:17 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 25, 2009, 03:32:59 PM
Quote from: Cnehring on August 25, 2009, 03:30:26 PM
Oh, there is a difference between "believe that we responded" and actually responding to the Word we have received through the Holy Scriptures.
Nope, no difference. A true belief is one that determines our actions. The Word creates a belief and we respond with actions.

Like when Eve was told "You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." She heard those words, thought they made sense to her, and she believed them and acted on them.
Yup, and they proved to be true. They did not die (at least physically) on that day. Their eyes were opened. They were like God in knowing good and evil.

QuoteOr when Jesus was told, "To you I will give their glory and all this authority; for it has been given over to me, and I give it to anyone I please. If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours." If Jesus had believed that lie, then things would have been very different.
Why do you think that's a lie? Sure things would have been different; Jesus could be ruling all the kingdoms of the world now rather than in the future!
.
Uh Brian, is it your intent to argue that God lied to Adam and Eve while it was Satan that was telling them the truth?  That Satan was making a fair and honest offer to Jesus?  Perhaps it would have been better for all concerned, certainly for Jesus since He could then have avoided that whole cross thing, if He had seriously considered that?  Do you generally find Satan to be honest and upfront in what He says?  Do you find God to be generally less than honest?  Sure sounded like that but then I sometimes have trouble getting your sophisticated humor.

Dan
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Brian Stoffregen

#152
Quote from: Dan Fienen on August 25, 2009, 08:28:24 PM
Uh Brian, is it your intent to argue that God lied to Adam and Eve while it was Satan that was telling them the truth?
I said nothing about God lying, but I do see that what the serpent said did come true.

QuoteThat Satan was making a fair and honest offer to Jesus?  Perhaps it would have been better for all concerned, certainly for Jesus since He could then have avoided that whole cross thing, if He had seriously considered that?
Yup, that's precisely what the temptation of Jesus is about -- to avoid the cross thing. It comes from Satan right after his baptism, and it comes from people while he's on the cross and they call him to save himself.

QuoteDo you generally find Satan to be honest and upfront in what He says?
Satan's power is found in enticing us away from trusting God. Satan will do and say whatever will be enticing -- it may prove to be true. The fruit of the forbidden tree could have been delicious to eat. It may prove to be false. That fruit could have tasted terrible. It is likely to be incomplete, smoking cigarettes will relax you, but the Enticer doesn't present all the side affects and health hazards that also come with that pleasurable act. At least drug companies have to give warnings about side-affects.

In regards to Jesus' temptation/testing: while Jesus will not miraculous make bread for himself; he will do that later to feed over 5000 people. While Jesus will not test God by jumping off a tower, he will later (at least in Matthew) walk on water, and in Luke, have the angels take him up to heaven. While he will not assume authority over all the kingdoms of the world at Satan's bidding, we believe that he will come again and will assume such universal authority over all the earth. It's not that he was tempted to do bad things, but he was enticed to turn his trust away from God -- to take an easy road that would avoid his own hunger and the sufferings related to betrayal, rejection, denial, and unjust execution on a cross.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Revbert

I have just read all 11 pages of this.

Jeff Ruby, my brother...you wrote an excellent letter, as painful as it was to do.

Charles and Brian S, my brothers...you wrote consistently to your posts all these years prior, for which I give you thanks as well for being solid in your views.

Brian H, my brother-in-Hawaiian-shirt  :D, wish I knew about the gathering the other day for the small group...would have liked to have been there.

My bishop and I are to have a meeting very soon, just need to find a time that doesn't conflict with the school day, as this pastor has a full teaching load this year, too (Thanks be to God for growth in spite of the questionable economy). Many of the words here will be said to him by me, and no, Charles, I don't plan to use footnotes while speaking to him.

Art Hebbeler

Darrell Wacker

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 25, 2009, 06:44:13 PM
Quote from: Darrell Wacker on August 25, 2009, 04:55:08 PM
I can believe the earth is flat and that doesn't make it so.
Whether it is so or not, if you believe it, it will determine your actions.

QuoteThose who believe it's ok to contradict God's clear word are wrong and are substituting their desires and understanding for that that is revealed in Scripture.
Nobody believes that it's OK to contradict God's clear word. We are acting in accord with our belief in what God is saying in his Word. Just because you believe something different about God's word doesn't make it so.

Just because a belief informs my actions doesn't make either of them correct.

What God's Word says is not just my belief...it's the clear, plain language.

Darrell Wacker

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 25, 2009, 06:48:34 PM
Quote from: Gary Nuss, STS on August 25, 2009, 06:47:34 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 25, 2009, 06:44:13 PM
Quote from: Darrell Wacker on August 25, 2009, 04:55:08 PM
Nobody believes that it's OK to contradict God's clear word. We are acting in accord with our belief in what God is saying in his Word. Just because you believe something different about God's word doesn't make it so.

Right back at you, Brian.  Those of us who hold to the traditional teachings of the church can say the same to you.
Yes, you can. That's the stalemate we've been in for a decade. A difference is that I'm willing to recognize that your belief and actions on that belief come from your understanding of God speaking to you through the word. Many of the "traditionalists" are not willing to recognize that our belief and actions on that belief also come from our understanding of God speaking to us through the word.

That's because they don't.  God does not contradict Himself and tell you one thing and the rest of the Church something else.  Of course, I realize that doesn't keep the revisionists from arrogantly thinking that's the case.

FatherWilliam57

Quote from: George Erdner on August 25, 2009, 08:26:07 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 25, 2009, 08:17:56 PM
Quote from: George Erdner on August 25, 2009, 08:14:21 PM
When you supported the Task Force Statements.
Uh, the Task Force submitted one Statement: Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust. Why is supporting that statement throwing out the Law?

If you put the beef over a very hot fire, the mailliard reaction takes place as the meat proteins caramelize and turn brown, generating wonderful flavors. Once the meat is nicely browned, reduce the heat and slowly cook it to an internal temperature of no more than 130 degrees. Remove from the heat and let it rest for at least five minutes before carving. That lets the juices settle, while carryover heat will take the interior up to 130 degrees. Slice thinly across the grain, and top with the caramelized onions we made earlier.

Uh...yeah...that seems about right.   ???

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest two possibilities (please don't take this the wrong way, George):  Either you are claiming Brian's response is a non sequiter and are making that point with another non sequiter, or you have gone off your meds.  You are taking your meds, aren't you, George?  ;)
The Rev. William B. Henry, Jr.
Interim Pastor, St. Peter's Lutheran Church, Evans City, PA
"Put on the whole armor of God."

Charles_Austin

Darrell Wacker writes:
That's because they don't.  God does not contradict Himself and tell you one thing and the rest of the Church something else.  

I comment:
But since we have not heard the audible voice of God, and since the interpretation of the written words of God vary and since the Word of God is the only "Word" that counts, this issue cannot be framed this way, at least in Lutheranism, or at least in the kind of Lutheranism in the ELCA.
The issue is:
can those who interpret the words of God as saying that women can be ordained and those who interpret the words of God as saying that women cannot be ordained still be in fellowship in the same segment of the Body of Christ? You in the LC-MS tryi to say "no," although I'd bet another pound of bratwust that you have LC-MSers who favor ordination for women.
We do not say that Roman Catholics are not brothers and sisters in Christ (well, maybe some of us do) because of how their part of the Body of Christ does things; we just say (some of us do) that we cannot be in fellowship or be in the same part of the Body.
The issue facing us - not you, but us - in the ELCA today is whether those who approve of the changes in policies made last week and those who oppose can be in fellowship in the same segment of the Body of Christ? Some say "no," and some, like Pastor Wolf, say yes. I'm with her on that part of the issue.

George Erdner

Quote from: FatherWilliam57 on August 26, 2009, 04:04:47 AM
Quote from: George Erdner on August 25, 2009, 08:26:07 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 25, 2009, 08:17:56 PM
Quote from: George Erdner on August 25, 2009, 08:14:21 PM
When you supported the Task Force Statements.
Uh, the Task Force submitted one Statement: Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust. Why is supporting that statement throwing out the Law?

If you put the beef over a very hot fire, the mailliard reaction takes place as the meat proteins caramelize and turn brown, generating wonderful flavors. Once the meat is nicely browned, reduce the heat and slowly cook it to an internal temperature of no more than 130 degrees. Remove from the heat and let it rest for at least five minutes before carving. That lets the juices settle, while carryover heat will take the interior up to 130 degrees. Slice thinly across the grain, and top with the caramelized onions we made earlier.

Uh...yeah...that seems about right.   ???

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest two possibilities (please don't take this the wrong way, George):  Either you are claiming Brian's response is a non sequiter and are making that point with another non sequiter, or you have gone off your meds.  You are taking your meds, aren't you, George?  ;)

Brian has a tendency to respond with non-sequiturs or to drag discussions off on tangents. I have begun to respond to his digressions and beside the point arguments with equally beside the point comments of my own. This is not the first time I have done so.

I did take my medication yesterday, but that is only an ointment to treat a skin rash. 

Thomas Byers

Krauth stated that the orthodox may not have fellowship with "fundamental errorists".  Would this apply?  tb

dkeener

In an interview in the Wittenburg Door, N.T. Wright answers this to the question, "How do you respond to those who interpret scripture using the lens of personal experience?"

"Because of our propensity to self-deception, we constantly need to check against scripture, whether we are allowing the word of God's grace in the gospel, and God's reaffirmation of us as made in his image, to validate what is in fact an idolatrous and distorted form of humanness."

http://www.wittenburgdoor.com/heavy-theological-dude-mistakenly-talks-us

BeckyThane

Quote from: dkeener on August 26, 2009, 01:27:24 PM
In an interview in the Wittenburg Door, N.T. Wright answers this to the question, "How do you respond to those who interpret scripture using the lens of personal experience?"

"Because of our propensity to self-deception, we constantly need to check against scripture, whether we are allowing the word of God's grace in the gospel, and God's reaffirmation of us as made in his image, to validate what is in fact an idolatrous and distorted form of humanness."

http://www.wittenburgdoor.com/heavy-theological-dude-mistakenly-talks-us
And all the faithful shout: AMEN!

It is for this very reason that I did not become Episcopalian (Thanks be to God!) a decade ago. When I saw that they elevate Reason to the same level as Scripture, I knew it was a philosophy I should flee from as if it was the Devil himself.

EarlOfOrmond

Quote from: BeckyThane on August 27, 2009, 08:33:32 AM
Quote from: dkeener on August 26, 2009, 01:27:24 PM
In an interview in the Wittenburg Door, N.T. Wright answers this to the question, "How do you respond to those who interpret scripture using the lens of personal experience?"

"Because of our propensity to self-deception, we constantly need to check against scripture, whether we are allowing the word of God's grace in the gospel, and God's reaffirmation of us as made in his image, to validate what is in fact an idolatrous and distorted form of humanness."

http://www.wittenburgdoor.com/heavy-theological-dude-mistakenly-talks-us
And all the faithful shout: AMEN!

It is for this very reason that I did not become Episcopalian (Thanks be to God!) a decade ago. When I saw that they elevate Reason to the same level as Scripture, I knew it was a philosophy I should flee from as if it was the Devil himself.

Methodism is similar in its use of the "three-legged stool": Scripture, Tradition, Reason.

Not surprising since John Wesley was a priest in the C. of E. and never left it.

incarnation

Charles Austin writes, "But since we have not heard the audible voice of God, and since the interpretation of the written words of God vary and since the Word of God is the only "Word" that counts, this issue cannot be framed this way, at least in Lutheranism, or at least in the kind of Lutheranism in the ELCA."

Charles, what you argue for here essentially is one of either two things:

a) Because we cannot know for sure what God means given varying interpretations, we are free to interpret how we wish and God won't mind - (a.k.a. pluralism)

or

b) Because we cannot know for sure what God means given varying interpretations, we cannot trust anything Scripture says, so whatever we decide is fine even if it contradicts longheld teaching by the vast majority of Christians for 2,000 years (a.k.a. pluralism)

Do you really believe God is that obtuse?  Is God incapable of clearly conveying himself?  If so, then Jesus' statement "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life," would prove him to have been a madman and not the divine Son of God.  I cannot buy into such poppycock.  Even Luther wouldn't go there!

To all:

As for the three legged stool, the degeneration of Protestantism in general and Lutheranism in particular proves to me that the original three legged stool (Scripture, Tradition, and Jesus' duly appointed magisterium and its apostolic successors) is the only thing given by God to preserve the Church and the Apostolic faith it teaches (never mind the abuses of individual office holders for if that renders either the Church or the Office of Word and Sacrament void then Jesus' promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church was a lie to begin with).  This stool does not allow for the pluralism and the chaos that is plaguing Protestantism, not to mention schism after schism after schism.  Although necessary reforms of abuses in Luther's day were achieved, over all the Reformation has proven to be a terrible and tragic failure leaving its descendants in a chaos of personal preference that annoints each person to be their own completely infallible Pope (not limited to ex cathedra, nor kept from overturning Scripture or Tradition) and renders the Confessional Lutheran stance of seeking the healing of the breech of the 16th Century to the ash heap as I dare say the percentage of the laity, should they be asked, wanting reunion and reconcilliation with Rome (especially if it means accepting Roman polity), is very nearly nill.  The establishment of the ELCA did not bring this on.  I dare say both the LCA and ALC would have succumbed to the culture in their own time, just not at the same time, like the captivities of Israel and Judah.  Missouri and WELS will fall and schism on other issues further on down the road if not by the ones that have broken the ELCA recently (not to mention others like the selling out of Lutheran teaching on the Real Presence to the UCC, the RCA, the PCUSA, and now the UMC).

incarnation

Oh, just so I am not interpreted to suggest that the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with the three legged stool I refer to, I advocate he is the one who calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies it as well as operates through it to preserve the Church and the faith it teaches.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk