News:


Main Menu

Sola Scriptura

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: Confessional Lutheran on May 17, 2012, 03:27:33 AM
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!


One way is to note that some early commentaries on this verse define "unnatural" as a woman having sex with a boy, or during pregnancy, or taking a dominant rather than passive role; and similarly, when a free man allowed himself to be used sexually by another free man, it meant taking a subordinate role which was considered unnatural for a free man; but quite natural for a slave or a woman.


I'm also wondering where you got the phrase "it is dishonorable and shameful to God"? It's not in translations that I looked at. The NIV talks about "shameful lusts." The NRSV translates it as "degrading passions". The ESV has "dishonorable passions". The CEB, "degrading lusts". The same word, ἀτιμἰα, is used by Paul in 1 Cor 11:14 about a man with long hair. Is the ἀτιμἰα connected with a man having long hair a universal or moral issue; or one that was determined by the culture at that time and in that place?


Another way is that the word for sexual relations is χρῆσις, which literally refers to how something is used. This is the only place in the NT where this euphemism is used for sexual relationships. (There are many other euphemism that have a more positive connotation: "to know," "to lie with," "to bed."). This particular one carries a nuance of using another person to satisfy one's passions/desires. It is not a term that implies a life-long, loving relationship.


The ELCA's statement is clear that we are opposed to using other people (or even pictures) for one's own sexual pleasure.


The general conclusion that I believe the ELCA has about these verses is that they are not talking about publicly accountable, life-long, monogamous same-gender relationships. Rather it is talking against people using one another for sexual purposes. It is talking about degrading another person. It is talking about some cultural issues regarding honor and dishonor (like a man having long hair).     
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: Confessional Lutheran on May 17, 2012, 11:00:43 AM
But as you say, Antinomianism never really works.

Seems to be doing real well in the ELCA.


It's a matter of perspective.


We see it as the proper distinction between law and gospel -- with the emphasis on gospel.


What the LCMS calls law and gospel, we see as legalism because of their emphasis on the law.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Lutheranistic

I appreciate Pr. Stoffregen's scholarship, I really do...even if I often disagree with his conclusions. But I wonder...If I ever get my time machine working and got in it to go back to first century Nazareth...and came across the Son of God doing a Q & A on a hillside somewhere...and asked him if publicly accountable, life-long, monogamous same-gender sexual relationships were God-pleasing...and Jesus, knowing that his words would be written down to become part of the Gospel...what would he say? I think in addition to scholarship, common sense has to come in somewhere, does it not?

DCharlton

#78
Quote from: Confessional Lutheran on May 17, 2012, 11:00:43 AM
But as you say, Antinomianism never really works.

Seems to be doing real well in the ELCA.

Antinomianism can work well as a form of self deception.  But it never succeeds in doing away with the Law.  The Law in its Second Use, the Law that accuses, can never be silenced by an eraser or white-out.  It cannot be voted out of existence by a committee.  Furthermore, when we have convinced ourselves that we have silenced the Law, we then neglect to preach the Gospel.  Things simply get worse for the sinner.

The First Use of the Law, meanwhile, remains necessary for life in this world. No community can exist without it.  Oftentimes, a modern ideology is recruited to fill the void left by the Law we have rejected.  Or the Gospel itself is turned into the Law.  God's radical forgiveness of sinners, which we consider unnecessary since we have abolished the Law, is turned into radical hospitality.  You must welcome everyone unconditionally, and the bishop will be watching to see if you do!  Those who fail to achieve true diversity in their churches and communities will be judged!   

Now what do we do if we fail to meet our self imposed quotas?  Try harder!  There is no forgiveness to be found, because we turned it into Law.
David Charlton  

Was Algul Siento a divinity school?

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: Lutheranistic on May 17, 2012, 12:42:33 PM
I appreciate Pr. Stoffregen's scholarship, I really do...even if I often disagree with his conclusions. But I wonder...If I ever get my time machine working and got in it to go back to first century Nazareth...and came across the Son of God doing a Q & A on a hillside somewhere...and asked him if publicly accountable, life-long, monogamous same-gender sexual relationships were God-pleasing...and Jesus, knowing that his words would be written down to become part of the Gospel...what would he say? I think in addition to scholarship, common sense has to come in somewhere, does it not?


Thank you for your comments.


I wasn't expecting anyone to necessarily agree with me, but answered the question of how the ELCA understood those verses. (We don't "get around it" nor "ignore" it as the questioner assumed.) We attack it head on and conclude that it doesn't apply to PALMS (and neither do any of the other same-gender sexual behavior passages, in the ELCA's understanding of them).


Perhaps Jesus looked around and saw free men and soldiers using and abusing young men and women of the lower classes for their own sexual pleasures, he might have said, "Publicly accountable, life-long, monogamous relationships ... hmmm, sounds like a good idea."
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

dschoelles

Brian,

It doesn't matter what the bible says and how many times it says it,
you twist yourselves into exegetical pretzels to explain away the clear and direct meaning of the passage (yes, I know, you will say it is cloudy and foggy - you would say that on an August day in West Texas).

But it is as you say, in the ELCA's understanding of them {which was predetermined}.
Human reason over Scripture.

Funny how the complex theological assertions of Creation, the Trinity, Incarnation, the Cross, Atonement, Salvation, Sanctification, and Eschatology can be understood pretty simply, but this simple issue of human sexuality is muddy and obscure.
Obviously, created sexual differences mean nothing - we are interchangable. parts is parts.

I don't even know why I am bothering to type this - because you cannot be convinced by Scripture. We don't even have the same scripture. The ELCA has adopted the hermenuetical key that anything which challenges people to live under the Law and which causes divisions between humans is to be rejected as not authoritative.

If we no longer have the same scripture, then do we have unity. Considering what I experience in the ELCA: NO.

Keith Falk

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on May 17, 2012, 05:28:06 PM
Quote from: Lutheranistic on May 17, 2012, 12:42:33 PM
I appreciate Pr. Stoffregen's scholarship, I really do...even if I often disagree with his conclusions. But I wonder...If I ever get my time machine working and got in it to go back to first century Nazareth...and came across the Son of God doing a Q & A on a hillside somewhere...and asked him if publicly accountable, life-long, monogamous same-gender sexual relationships were God-pleasing...and Jesus, knowing that his words would be written down to become part of the Gospel...what would he say? I think in addition to scholarship, common sense has to come in somewhere, does it not?


Thank you for your comments.


I wasn't expecting anyone to necessarily agree with me, but answered the question of how the ELCA understood those verses. (We don't "get around it" nor "ignore" it as the questioner assumed.) We attack it head on and conclude that it doesn't apply to PALMS (and neither do any of the other same-gender sexual behavior passages, in the ELCA's understanding of them).


Perhaps Jesus looked around and saw free men and soldiers using and abusing young men and women of the lower classes for their own sexual pleasures, he might have said, "Publicly accountable, life-long, monogamous relationships ... hmmm, sounds like a good idea."


The bolded/italicized needs to be edited.  You answered how the ELCA *might* understand those verses.  Remember there are four "official" positions in the ELCA.
Rev. Keith Falk, STS

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: dschoelles on May 17, 2012, 06:15:28 PM
But it is as you say, in the ELCA's understanding of them {which was predetermined}.
Human reason over Scripture.


No, Luther's "scripture and right reason" -- exactly the same thing that all Lutherans use; but we come to different interpretations.


QuoteI don't even know why I am bothering to type this - because you cannot be convinced by Scripture.


From my perspective, I have been convinced by Scripture, and because I believe that such understanding did come from God, I'm waiting for God to do the same with others.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Brian Stoffregen

#83
Quote from: Keith Falk on May 17, 2012, 06:38:00 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on May 17, 2012, 05:28:06 PM
Quote from: Lutheranistic on May 17, 2012, 12:42:33 PM
I appreciate Pr. Stoffregen's scholarship, I really do...even if I often disagree with his conclusions. But I wonder...If I ever get my time machine working and got in it to go back to first century Nazareth...and came across the Son of God doing a Q & A on a hillside somewhere...and asked him if publicly accountable, life-long, monogamous same-gender sexual relationships were God-pleasing...and Jesus, knowing that his words would be written down to become part of the Gospel...what would he say? I think in addition to scholarship, common sense has to come in somewhere, does it not?


Thank you for your comments.


I wasn't expecting anyone to necessarily agree with me, but answered the question of how the ELCA understood those verses. (We don't "get around it" nor "ignore" it as the questioner assumed.) We attack it head on and conclude that it doesn't apply to PALMS (and neither do any of the other same-gender sexual behavior passages, in the ELCA's understanding of them).


Perhaps Jesus looked around and saw free men and soldiers using and abusing young men and women of the lower classes for their own sexual pleasures, he might have said, "Publicly accountable, life-long, monogamous relationships ... hmmm, sounds like a good idea."


The bolded/italicized needs to be edited.  You answered how the ELCA *might* understand those verses.  Remember there are four "official" positions in the ELCA.


Yes, it should be edited. I would say: It is how the ELCA understands these verses -- and it is not the only way that the ELCA understands these verses. Some ELCA folks understand them the same way that LCMS folks understand them.


In none of the understandings do we try to "get around" or "ignore" these verses.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Lutheranistic

Pr. Stoffregen wrote:
QuotePerhaps Jesus looked around and saw free men and soldiers using and abusing young men and women of the lower classes for their own sexual pleasures, he might have said, "Publicly accountable, life-long, monogamous relationships ... hmmm, sounds like a good idea."

Pr. Stoffregen, you left "same gender" out of the hypothetical response from Jesus...I'm assuming that was an oversight, not a modification of your view..if I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me.

I realize that I'm now coming at this from a reasoning/logic standpoint rather than a scriptural one, but I think that has it's place, even in a thread entitled "Sola Scriptura"...but do we now determine that an action is God-pleasing because something worse is possible? I can (ok, have) justify all sorts of questionable behavior on my part by looking across the street and saying, "God must be pleased with what I'm doing because it's not nearly as bad as what those people over there are doing!"

Just trying to follow the thought process...really.

Steven Tibbetts

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on May 17, 2012, 05:28:06 PM
We attack it head on and conclude that it doesn't apply to PALMS (and neither do any of the other same-gender sexual behavior passages, in the ELCA's understanding of them).


Then again, regarding same-sex relationships, the ELCA describes 4 widely divergent understandings, including at least two that are polar opposites, and then asserts that all four are acceptable positions.  This may not best example to describe "the ELCA's understanding" of -- uh, just what theological topic are we on now?

Then again, maybe it is!

The Rev. Steven Paul Tibbetts, STS
Pastor Zip's Blog

Don Whitbeck

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on May 17, 2012, 11:18:53 AM
Quote from: Confessional Lutheran on May 17, 2012, 11:00:43 AM
But as you say, Antinomianism never really works.

Seems to be doing real well in the ELCA.


It's a matter of perspective.


We see it as the proper distinction between law and gospel -- with the emphasis on gospel.


What the LCMS calls law and gospel, we see as legalism because of their emphasis on the law.

I was taught that in Law and Gospel, if the law is dropped and your only preaching the gospel, the gospel become the law, and there is no Gospel.

So there again the ELCA doesn't believe as we do, doesn't even come close, Brian.
The Voice of God will NEVER Contradict the Word of God

Don Whitbeck

Quote from: DCharlton on May 17, 2012, 04:33:37 PM
Quote from: Confessional Lutheran on May 17, 2012, 11:00:43 AM
But as you say, Antinomianism never really works.

Seems to be doing real well in the ELCA.

Antinomianism can work well as a form of self deception.  But it never succeeds in doing away with the Law.  The Law in its Second Use, the Law that accuses, can never be silenced by an eraser or white-out.  It cannot be voted out of existence by a committee.  Furthermore, when we have convinced ourselves that we have silenced the Law, we then neglect to preach the Gospel.  Things simply get worse for the sinner.

The First Use of the Law, meanwhile, remains necessary for life in this world. No community can exist without it.  Oftentimes, a modern ideology is recruited to fill the void left by the Law we have rejected.  Or the Gospel itself is turned into the Law.  God's radical forgiveness of sinners, which we consider unnecessary since we have abolished the Law, is turned into radical hospitality.  You must welcome everyone unconditionally, and the bishop will be watching to see if you do!  Those who fail to achieve true diversity in their churches and communities will be judged!   

Now what do we do if we fail to meet our self imposed quotas?  Try harder!  There is no forgiveness to be found, because we turned it into Law.

I missed this one Rev Charlton, this is what I was taught.  This is just another factor that presents its self as a fact that the ELCA doesn't believe or practice what we believe period.  Those who did are leaving the ELCA, as well still in the ELCA who believe just that, Thank God for that!

Thank you, for your post.  Again sorry for posting after the facts were presented by you.
The Voice of God will NEVER Contradict the Word of God

peter_speckhard

When the preaching of God's Word sounds like all Law, it could be that the preacher is not properly distinguishing Law and Gospel. Or it could be that the preacher is indeed distinguishing them properly but the hearer still lacks repentance. He who has ears....

DCharlton

#89
Quote from: peter_speckhard on May 18, 2012, 08:45:33 AM
When the preaching of God's Word sounds like all Law, it could be that the preacher is not properly distinguishing Law and Gospel. Or it could be that the preacher is indeed distinguishing them properly but the hearer still lacks repentance. He who has ears....

A professor at Luther, Dr. Walter Sundberg, has put out a book entitled "Worship as Repentance" that deals in part with the neglect of repentance in modern American Lutheranism.  It will be controversial and will face criticism from evangelical catholics as well as some on the confessional side who resist placing any conditions on the Gospel.  Sundberg criticizes the shift from "penitential piety" to "eucharistic piety" that began with SBH and came to full flower with the LBW.  He also criticizes the unconditional absolution found in many Lutheran liturgies in the second half of th 20th Century.  He calls for the restoration of a penitential piety and the use of both the binding and the loosing keys in worship.
David Charlton  

Was Algul Siento a divinity school?

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk