News:


Main Menu

Sola Scriptura

Started by RogerMartim, May 10, 2012, 06:18:30 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Timotheus Verinus

#60
Quote from: The Rev. Steven P. Tibbetts, STS on May 16, 2012, 02:15:53 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on May 16, 2012, 11:54:53 AM
Quote from: The Rev. Steven P. Tibbetts, STS on May 15, 2012, 03:23:56 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on May 15, 2012, 02:03:13 PM
What I'm arguing against is the theory that because they had eyewitnesses it must all be historically true and factual in every detail.


So, once again, you create a Straw Man, then argue against it....

I did not start the eyewitnesses argument. I am arguing against what TV wrote. I don't think he's made of straw.

Nonsense, Brian.  You created the "that because they had eyewitnesses it must all be historically true and factual in every detail" Straw Man (or, if you prefer, red herring) in this conversation.  Not Pastor Awtrey, or me, or anybody else speaking of what is true, but you, all by yourself, constantly pointing us to something else. 

Christe eleison, Steven+

I'm going to take one last stab at this Brian.

Since every thing you breath and post here is anchored in "The Elephant Fable," let's try and point out what you are doing. Straw men or red herrings not registering it seems.

When the blind men give their reports. We (Steven and I etc.) continue to proclaim, "The elephant is an elephant, whatever arguments are made." The confusion of the blind men does not make the tail a rope. It does not make the leg a tree. The tail is the tail of the elephant. The leg is the leg of the elephant.

What you do then Brian is begin an argument about "ropes and trees." You then accuse that I (or others) brought up the subject of "ropes and trees."

No. We are talking about the Elephant. And it remains an elephant though it all. It never changes.

TV
TAALC Pastor

Brian Stoffregen

#61
Quote from: James_Gale on May 16, 2012, 06:00:38 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on May 16, 2012, 05:54:36 PM
Quote from: Weedon on May 16, 2012, 05:42:44 PM
Brian,

I would love for you to show me in Luther's own writings and words what he says that St. Paul's words in Romans 1 don't apply to Christians.  You have a reference for me?


Where I have I suggested that they didn't?

That's the conclusion reached by PB Chilstrom and Bp. Erdahl.  You say that they used "Luther's approach" to Scripture in reaching this conclusion.


No, I did not say that. I've not said anything about these two bishops and what they've written. This topic is Sola Scriptura. For Luther and Lutherans, the scriptures are the cradle that holds Christ.


I've also suggested that Christ can and certainly was known and believed in without scriptures. The first Gentile converts did not know the Hebrew Scriptures and the NT hadn't been written, yet they came to believe in Jesus; the Word made flesh.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

DCharlton

Quote from: Timotheus Verinus on May 16, 2012, 06:29:19 PM
Quote from: The Rev. Steven P. Tibbetts, STS on May 16, 2012, 02:15:53 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on May 16, 2012, 11:54:53 AM
Quote from: The Rev. Steven P. Tibbetts, STS on May 15, 2012, 03:23:56 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on May 15, 2012, 02:03:13 PM
What I'm arguing against is the theory that because they had eyewitnesses it must all be historically true and factual in every detail.


So, once again, you create a Straw Man, then argue against it....

I did not start the eyewitnesses argument. I am arguing against what TV wrote. I don't think he's made of straw.

Nonsense, Brian.  You created the "that because they had eyewitnesses it must all be historically true and factual in every detail" Straw Man (or, if you prefer, red herring) in this conversation.  Not Pastor Awtrey, or me, or anybody else speaking of what is true, but you, all by yourself, constantly pointing us to something else. 

Christe eleison, Steven+

I'm going to take one last stab at this Brian.

Since every thing you breath and post here is anchored in "The Elephant Fable," let's try and point out what you are doing. Straw men or red herrings not registering it seems.

When the blind men give their reports. We (Steven and I etc.) continue to proclaim, "The elephant is an elephant, whatever arguments are made." The confusion of the blind men does not make the tail a rope. It does not make the leg a tree. The tail is the tail of the elephant. The leg is the leg of the elephant.

What you do then Brian is begin an argument about "ropes and trees." You then accuse that I (or others) brought up the subject of "ropes and trees."

No. We are talking about the Elephant. And it remains an elephant though it all. It never changes.

TV

TV,

I chose the new quotation under my signature specifically to honor Brian's role on this forum.

David
David Charlton  

Was Algul Siento a divinity school?

James_Gale

Quote from: Dave Likeness on May 16, 2012, 01:57:33 PM
If Sola Scriptura becomes only the Gospel and eliminates
the Law, then we become antinomians.  Liberal theology
has been working hard to remove moral absolutes from the
Bible.  Moral relativism welcomes gay marriage as a way to
civil rights rather than a sin against the 6th commandment.

Romans 1:26,27.....makes it clear that when women exchange
natural relations for those that are contrary to nature,  and men
are consumed with passion for relations with other men, then
it is dishonorable and shameful to God.

I always hesitate when I see people describing "liberal" theology as antinomian.  Ultimately, I think that antinomianism does not and cannot exist, at least not within a logically coherent belief system.  "Liberal" theology has its own absolutes, after all; commitment to various kinds of "justice," for example. 

You're right, of course, that liberal theology relativizes the moral teachings of Scripture.  But that alone is not antinomian.  It's simply a rejection of one type of absolute in favor of another. 

Even people on the left are often blind to the fact that their world view includes its own built-in "intolerance"; they often view themselves as tolerant of all.  The truth is quite different, of course.  Consider the following press release issued by a California mall manager who refused to permit an interview on its premises of Manny Pacquiao (a champion boxer, a member of the Philippine Congress, and a Christian who has said that he believes same-sex sexual relationships are contrary to God's will):  "Based on news reports of statements made by Mr. Pacquiao we have made it be known that he is not welcome at The Grove and will not be interviewed here now or in the future. The Grove is a gathering place for all Angelenos and not a place for intolerance[.]"

How can anyone read that last sentence and not laugh out loud at the dishonesty (or perhaps it's self-delusion)?

DCharlton

Quote from: James_Gale on May 16, 2012, 07:15:36 PM
Quote from: Dave Likeness on May 16, 2012, 01:57:33 PM
If Sola Scriptura becomes only the Gospel and eliminates
the Law, then we become antinomians.  Liberal theology
has been working hard to remove moral absolutes from the
Bible.  Moral relativism welcomes gay marriage as a way to
civil rights rather than a sin against the 6th commandment.

Romans 1:26,27.....makes it clear that when women exchange
natural relations for those that are contrary to nature,  and men
are consumed with passion for relations with other men, then
it is dishonorable and shameful to God.

I always hesitate when I see people describing "liberal" theology as antinomian.  Ultimately, I think that antinomianism does not and cannot exist, at least not within a logically coherent belief system.  "Liberal" theology has its own absolutes, after all; commitment to various kinds of "justice," for example. 

You're right, of course, that liberal theology relativizes the moral teachings of Scripture.  But that alone is not antinomian.  It's simply a rejection of one type of absolute in favor of another. 

Even people on the left are often blind to the fact that their world view includes its own built-in "intolerance"; they often view themselves as tolerant of all.  The truth is quite different, of course.  Consider the following press release issued by a California mall manager who refused to permit an interview on its premises of Manny Pacquiao (a champion boxer, a member of the Philippine Congress, and a Christian who has said that he believes same-sex sexual relationships are contrary to God's will):  "Based on news reports of statements made by Mr. Pacquiao we have made it be known that he is not welcome at The Grove and will not be interviewed here now or in the future. The Grove is a gathering place for all Angelenos and not a place for intolerance[.]"

How can anyone read that last sentence and not laugh out loud at the dishonesty (or perhaps it's self-delusion)?

James,

You have described what is sometimes called "The Antinomian Two-Step".  The Antinomian tries to silence the voice of the Law by announcing, "The Law no longer applies.  All is Gospel!"  Inevitably, however, they find they need some kind of standard for the community, so they smuggle in one ideology or another to replace the Law.  Or they try to turn the Gospel itself into the Law.  But as you say, Antinomianism never really works.

David
David Charlton  

Was Algul Siento a divinity school?

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: Timotheus Verinus on May 16, 2012, 06:29:19 PM
Quote from: The Rev. Steven P. Tibbetts, STS on May 16, 2012, 02:15:53 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on May 16, 2012, 11:54:53 AM
Quote from: The Rev. Steven P. Tibbetts, STS on May 15, 2012, 03:23:56 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on May 15, 2012, 02:03:13 PM
What I'm arguing against is the theory that because they had eyewitnesses it must all be historically true and factual in every detail.


So, once again, you create a Straw Man, then argue against it....

I did not start the eyewitnesses argument. I am arguing against what TV wrote. I don't think he's made of straw.

Nonsense, Brian.  You created the "that because they had eyewitnesses it must all be historically true and factual in every detail" Straw Man (or, if you prefer, red herring) in this conversation.  Not Pastor Awtrey, or me, or anybody else speaking of what is true, but you, all by yourself, constantly pointing us to something else. 

Christe eleison, Steven+

I'm going to take one last stab at this Brian.

Since every thing you breath and post here is anchored in "The Elephant Fable," let's try and point out what you are doing. Straw men or red herrings not registering it seems.

When the blind men give their reports. We (Steven and I etc.) continue to proclaim, "The elephant is an elephant, whatever arguments are made." The confusion of the blind men does not make the tail a rope. It does not make the leg a tree. The tail is the tail of the elephant. The leg is the leg of the elephant.

What you do then Brian is begin an argument about "ropes and trees." You then accuse that I (or others) brought up the subject of "ropes and trees."

No. We are talking about the Elephant. And it remains an elephant though it all. It never changes.


Let's approach it from the opposite direction. You say you are talking about an elephant. I say that there is a  part of an elephant that is like a rope; there are parts of the elephant that are like trees; etc., then you come back and say that I'm wrong because you're talking about an elephant.


Well, so am I.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Don Whitbeck

Quote from: Dave Likeness on May 16, 2012, 01:57:33 PM
If Sola Scriptura becomes only the Gospel and eliminates
the Law, then we become antinomians.  Liberal theology
has been working hard to remove moral absolutes from the
Bible.  Moral relativism welcomes gay marriage as a way to
civil rights rather than a sin against the 6th commandment.

Romans 1:26,27.....makes it clear that when women exchange
natural relations for those that are contrary to nature,  and men
are consumed with passion for relations with other men, then
it is dishonorable and shameful to God.

Romans 1:26,27.....makes it clear that when women exchange
natural relations for those that are contrary to nature,  and men
are consumed with passion for relations with other men, then
it is dishonorable and shameful to God.



How did the ELCA get around this?  Most likely ignored it period!
The Voice of God will NEVER Contradict the Word of God

Team Hesse

Quote from: DCharlton on May 16, 2012, 07:57:03 PM
Quote from: James_Gale on May 16, 2012, 07:15:36 PM
Quote from: Dave Likeness on May 16, 2012, 01:57:33 PM
If Sola Scriptura becomes only the Gospel and eliminates
the Law, then we become antinomians.  Liberal theology
has been working hard to remove moral absolutes from the
Bible.  Moral relativism welcomes gay marriage as a way to
civil rights rather than a sin against the 6th commandment.

Romans 1:26,27.....makes it clear that when women exchange
natural relations for those that are contrary to nature,  and men
are consumed with passion for relations with other men, then
it is dishonorable and shameful to God.

I always hesitate when I see people describing "liberal" theology as antinomian.  Ultimately, I think that antinomianism does not and cannot exist, at least not within a logically coherent belief system.  "Liberal" theology has its own absolutes, after all; commitment to various kinds of "justice," for example. 

You're right, of course, that liberal theology relativizes the moral teachings of Scripture.  But that alone is not antinomian.  It's simply a rejection of one type of absolute in favor of another. 

Even people on the left are often blind to the fact that their world view includes its own built-in "intolerance"; they often view themselves as tolerant of all.  The truth is quite different, of course.  Consider the following press release issued by a California mall manager who refused to permit an interview on its premises of Manny Pacquiao (a champion boxer, a member of the Philippine Congress, and a Christian who has said that he believes same-sex sexual relationships are contrary to God's will):  "Based on news reports of statements made by Mr. Pacquiao we have made it be known that he is not welcome at The Grove and will not be interviewed here now or in the future. The Grove is a gathering place for all Angelenos and not a place for intolerance[.]"

How can anyone read that last sentence and not laugh out loud at the dishonesty (or perhaps it's self-delusion)?

James,

You have described what is sometimes called "The Antinomian Two-Step".  The Antinomian tries to silence the voice of the Law by announcing, "The Law no longer applies.  All is Gospel!"  Inevitably, however, they find they need some kind of standard for the community, so they smuggle in one ideology or another to replace the Law.  Or they try to turn the Gospel itself into the Law.  But as you say, Antinomianism never really works.

David

Oswald Bayer speaks to this in the following thesis:

"In its universalizing of the Gospel, the modern age is antinomian, but at the same time it is increasingly nomistic." (p. 65, "Martin Luther's Theology A contemporary Interpretation"

Either we distinguish Law and Gospel or we live under Law; there is no such thing as antinomianism upon close examination. Bayer again:

"But if freedom is not promised and imparted, if instead it is characteristic of me from the outset, if I define myself in relation to it, then I am weighed down, in my individual and collective subjectivity, with having to fulfill the promise of what has been provided for me--not freed for freedom but for freedom condemned (Sartre). It is not that I am able to be free, but that I have to free myself. Thus the reverse side of antinomianism is nomism."

Lou

John_Hannah

Whenever Lutheranism unravels, it grasps desparately onto legalism.
Pr. JOHN HANNAH, STS

Weedon

#69
It's bigger than that, John.  Legalism is essentially the old Adam attempting to manipulate God (and he either alternately thinks he's pulled it off and so is smug or realizes it's hopeless and so is despairing).  And so we find legalism reigning wherever the old fellow is given a free reign.  It can happen in Lutheranism, but it certainly happens elsewhere too.  It happens, in fact, anywhere where the Kingdom doesn't break through with its astonishing gift of delight in the God who gives freely to set us free - not to live under the old Adam's dictates, but to conquer them in the Spirit and live as the free children of God not without law, but with the law inscribed in our hearts (not as knowledge, but as DESIRE).  "Delight yourself in the Lord and HE WILL GIVE YOU the desires of your heart."  Not "anything you want" but the actual desires themselves.  And that is freedom indeed!  Which is just a Weedon long-winded way of saying that what God in the Law demands and which we cannot deliver under our own powers under the law, that God in the Gospel freely gives to those who believe!

Matt Staneck

Quote from: Weedon on May 17, 2012, 10:11:45 AM
It's bigger than that, John.  Legalism is essentially the old Adam attempting to manipulate God (and he either alternately thinks he's pulled it off and so is smug or realizes it's hopeless and so is despairing).  And so we find legalism reigning wherever the old fellow is given a free reign.  It can happen in Lutheranism, but it certainly happens elsewhere too.  It happens, in fact, anywhere where the Kingdom doesn't break through with its astonishing gift of delight in the God who gives freely to set us free - not to live under the old Adam's dictates, but to conquer them in the Spirit and live as the free children of God not without law, but with the law inscribed in our hearts (not as knowledge, but as DESIRE).  "Delight yourself in the Lord and HE WILL GIVE YOU the desires of your heart."  Not "anything you want" but the actual desires themselves.  And that is freedom indeed!  Which is just a Weedon long-winded way of saying that what God in the Law demands and which we cannot deliver under our own powers under the law, that God in the Gospel freely gives to those who believe!

When this is "long-winded" you have at least my blessing to be such.  Thanks!

M. Staneck
Matt Staneck, Pastor
St. John's Evangelical Lutheran Church
Queens, NY

grabau

I recycle for a number of reasons.  "Liberals" almost seem to say that you cannot be saved if you do not.  grabau

Don Whitbeck

Quote from: Weedon on May 17, 2012, 10:11:45 AM
It's bigger than that, John.  Legalism is essentially the old Adam attempting to manipulate God (and he either alternately thinks he's pulled it off and so is smug or realizes it's hopeless and so is despairing).  And so we find legalism reigning wherever the old fellow is given a free reign.  It can happen in Lutheranism, but it certainly happens elsewhere too.  It happens, in fact, anywhere where the Kingdom doesn't break through with its astonishing gift of delight in the God who gives freely to set us free - not to live under the old Adam's dictates, but to conquer them in the Spirit and live as the free children of God not without law, but with the law inscribed in our hearts (not as knowledge, but as DESIRE).  "Delight yourself in the Lord and HE WILL GIVE YOU the desires of your heart."  Not "anything you want" but the actual desires themselves.  And that is freedom indeed!  Which is just a Weedon long-winded way of saying that what God in the Law demands and which we cannot deliver under our own powers under the law, that God in the Gospel freely gives to those who believe!

How refreshing in deed!  Thank you, Rev. Weedon!
The Voice of God will NEVER Contradict the Word of God

Don Whitbeck

But as you say, Antinomianism never really works.

Seems to be doing real well in the ELCA.

The Voice of God will NEVER Contradict the Word of God

Don Whitbeck

Quote from: grabau on May 17, 2012, 10:27:24 AM
I recycle for a number of reasons.  "Liberals" almost seem to say that you cannot be saved if you do not.  grabau

Liberal's say anything goes and its OK! 
The Voice of God will NEVER Contradict the Word of God

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk