News:


Main Menu

One God, Three Persons

Started by Brian Stoffregen, July 18, 2020, 05:20:01 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

readselerttoo

Quote from: David Garner on July 22, 2020, 06:37:09 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 22, 2020, 06:33:57 PM
Quote from: David Garner on July 22, 2020, 06:09:57 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 22, 2020, 06:06:34 PM
Quote from: Weedon on July 22, 2020, 04:31:28 PM
David,

Indeed, the terror of the disciples at the stilling of the storm: "Who is this that He commandeth even the wind and sea and they obey him?" Answer: "Then they cry unto the Lord in their trouble, and he bringeth them out of their distresses. He maketh the storm a calm, so that the waves thereof are still." Psalm 107

And who CAN forgive sins but God alone? And yet Jesus in the time of His flesh could declare: "Your sins are forgiven you" and so scandalize those who thought he was blaspheming.


And yet, when Jesus shows that he is not only able to forgive sins, but to heal the paralyzed man, he does not refer to himself as the "Son of God" or "Divine One," but "Son of Man" or "The Human One" (CEV) or "This Human Being" (my trans.) has authority on earth to forgive sins ...." I've already noted that Jesus' authority was given to him by the Father (John 5:26-27; 17:1-2).


In terms of omniscience, Jesus makes it clear that he does not know when the end will come. Only the Father knows (Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32). Jesus states that he does not know everything.

So you're saying Jesus was contradicting them, not by saying "I'm God," but by saying "no, this man does have the authority to forgive sins?"


Yup, that's pretty much how I read this, and all of the "Son of Man" references - "This Man" or "This Human." As our discussions has gone; the authority for "this Human" to forgive sins (as God does) could come from him also being divine; or through the authority that the divine Father has given him. Either way, he shows that he can forgive sins - and remove the (supposedly) suffering that sins brought to this man.


I don't find anywhere in the Synoptics where Jesus refers to himself as "Son of God," only "Son of Man." His emphasis is on his humanness. Often his enemies, like the Tempter will call him, "Son of God," but those words don't come from Jesus.

But He did say "before Abraham was, I am," and "I am He."

I think we need to reflect on Pr Weedon's reference to the person of the son of man in Daniel.  Son of man possesses divine attributes.  Jesus refers to the son of man (if it is indeed a self-referent) then we might need to see what the prophet Daniel is talking about who that is in chapter 7 verse 13

Brian Stoffregen

#226
Quote from: David Garner on July 22, 2020, 06:37:09 PM
But He did say "before Abraham was, I am," and "I am He."


Yes he did; John 8:58. The larger context may be a reference to the Testament of Abraham where Abraham is given a vision of heaven where he sees "a most wondrous man, who is adorned in such glory" (T.Abr 11: 8) . John has the Logos existing from before creation. John also has the "I am" (ἐγώ είμι) sayings. Jesus as the Logos existed before Abraham. Jesus as the incarnated one was born centuries after Abraham. A key element of faith in John is to recognize where Jesus comes from. He is not just from Nazareth, he is from God. He was not just born, he is the eternal Logos. I have no problems with who Jesus is: divine and human; it's the source of what he does that I am questioning. That is, his life as the incarnated human one was lived out of his human nature, so that it was truly a human life that he lived. (Certainly, the divine nature also experienced that life, but it was a life lived as a mortal human - one who would suffer and die.)

Interestingly, while in the LXX the longer name in Exodus 3:14 has: ἐγώ είμι ὁ ὤν, the shorter one in that verse has: ὁ ὤν, not
ἐγώ είμι like in John.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: readselerttoo on July 22, 2020, 06:49:49 PM
I think we need to reflect on Pr Weedon's reference to the person of the son of man in Daniel.  Son of man possesses divine attributes.  Jesus refers to the son of man (if it is indeed a self-referent) then we might need to see what the prophet Daniel is talking about who that is in chapter 7 verse 13


However, to be clear, Daniel talks about "one like a son of man" (ESV) or "one like a human being" (CEB) not simply "the son of man." The one like a human being is in contrast to those who were described as "beasts" earlier in chapter 7. Later we are told that they are kings (Dan 7:17). The one like a human being also will have a kingdom - an everlasting one. God will establish a humane king/kingdom in contrast to the beastly kings/kingdoms that had gone before.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Dan Fienen

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 22, 2020, 06:39:45 PM
Quote from: jebutler on July 22, 2020, 06:32:45 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 22, 2020, 06:09:01 PM
As some LCMS folks are fond of pointing out, the Confessions are true for us insofar as they agree with the teachings of Scriptures."

Wow. I can't believe how wrong you get this.

LCMS Lutherans have *never" argued that the Confessions are correct  "insofar as (quanteus) they agree with the teachings of Scriptures." We argue that the Confessions are correct because (quia) they agree with Scripture.


Absolutely! That's what I thought I said. I don't recall using those Latin terms in our confessions class, but I hear them often from LCMS folks. I used their language. The ELCA has a quatenus approach to the Confessions and LCMS has a quia approach.
It has been said at times that since both the ELCA and LCMS subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions and so share the same confession of the faith, we should be in fellowship with each other. You have succinctly demonstrated that we do not share the same confession. Your confession is quatenus while ours is quia. Not the same.

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 22, 2020, 06:39:45 PM
Quote
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 22, 2020, 06:09:01 PM
From what I've heard from LCMS folks, should such a situation arise, they conclude, "The Confessions are right, your interpretation of Scriptures is wrong."

Yes, Brian. The Confessions are right. *Your* "interpretation of Scriptures (sic) is wrong." No doubt about it.


There's a reason I'm not LCMS. Interestingly, of all the pre-sem students at Concordia, Portland with me, the only ones who are still on a clergy roster are ELCA.
Further illustrating that we do not share the same the same confession. Perhaps your observation about pre-sem students reveals more about Concordia, Portland than it does about the LCMS.
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Tom Eckstein

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 22, 2020, 06:33:57 PM
Quote from: David Garner on July 22, 2020, 06:09:57 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 22, 2020, 06:06:34 PM
Quote from: Weedon on July 22, 2020, 04:31:28 PM
David,

Indeed, the terror of the disciples at the stilling of the storm: "Who is this that He commandeth even the wind and sea and they obey him?" Answer: "Then they cry unto the Lord in their trouble, and he bringeth them out of their distresses. He maketh the storm a calm, so that the waves thereof are still." Psalm 107

And who CAN forgive sins but God alone? And yet Jesus in the time of His flesh could declare: "Your sins are forgiven you" and so scandalize those who thought he was blaspheming.


And yet, when Jesus shows that he is not only able to forgive sins, but to heal the paralyzed man, he does not refer to himself as the "Son of God" or "Divine One," but "Son of Man" or "The Human One" (CEV) or "This Human Being" (my trans.) has authority on earth to forgive sins ...." I've already noted that Jesus' authority was given to him by the Father (John 5:26-27; 17:1-2).


In terms of omniscience, Jesus makes it clear that he does not know when the end will come. Only the Father knows (Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32). Jesus states that he does not know everything.

So you're saying Jesus was contradicting them, not by saying "I'm God," but by saying "no, this man does have the authority to forgive sins?"


Yup, that's pretty much how I read this, and all of the "Son of Man" references - "This Man" or "This Human." As our discussions has gone; the authority for "this Human" to forgive sins (as God does) could come from him also being divine; or through the authority that the divine Father has given him. Either way, he shows that he can forgive sins - and remove the (supposedly) suffering that sins brought to this man.


I don't find anywhere in the Synoptics where Jesus refers to himself as "Son of God," only "Son of Man." His emphasis is on his humanness. Often his enemies, like the Tempter will call him, "Son of God," but those words don't come from Jesus.

At the end of Matthew Jesus commands that we baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.  When Jesus says "of the Son" He means that He is the Son of God.  If Jesus wasn't referring to Himself there, to whom was He referring?

In addition, others refer to Jesus as the Son of God:  The Father; the angel speaking to Mary; Peter in Matthew 16; and also by Paul in  various places in his letters.

Finally, as Will Weedon noted above, when Jesus calls Himself the "Son of Man," this is a referance to "God in human flesh" spoken of in Daniel.  Also, in Matthew 26:63 the high priest asks Jesus if He is the Son of God, and in Matthew 26:64 Jesus affirms this and then makes reference to Daniel's "Son of Man."  "Son of God" means that Jesus is the Son from all eternity;  "Son of Man" means that Jesus is the eternal Son of God in HUMAN FLESH!
I'm an LCMS Pastor in Jamestown, ND.

Richard Johnson

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 22, 2020, 05:14:39 PM

You fail to grasp the distinction I made in my "atrocious" statement.

Could be that it's because your statements are often pretty slippery . . .
The Rev. Richard O. Johnson, STS

readselerttoo

#231
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 22, 2020, 08:11:14 PM
Quote from: readselerttoo on July 22, 2020, 06:49:49 PM
I think we need to reflect on Pr Weedon's reference to the person of the son of man in Daniel.  Son of man possesses divine attributes.  Jesus refers to the son of man (if it is indeed a self-referent) then we might need to see what the prophet Daniel is talking about who that is in chapter 7 verse 13


However, to be clear, Daniel talks about "one like a son of man" (ESV) or "one like a human being" (CEB) not simply "the son of man." The one like a human being is in contrast to those who were described as "beasts" earlier in chapter 7. Later we are told that they are kings (Dan 7:17). The one like a human being also will have a kingdom - an everlasting one. God will establish a humane king/kingdom in contrast to the beastly kings/kingdoms that had gone before.



from Mark 14:  "Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" 62 And Jesus said, "I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand..."

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: Dan Fienen on July 22, 2020, 08:23:03 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 22, 2020, 06:39:45 PM
There's a reason I'm not LCMS. Interestingly, of all the pre-sem students at Concordia, Portland with me, the only ones who are still on a clergy roster are ELCA.
Further illustrating that we do not share the same the same confession. Perhaps your observation about pre-sem students reveals more about Concordia, Portland than it does about the LCMS.


The LCMS of '69-'71 when there was LCMS/ALC fellowship was a different organization than it is today. In addition, I heard it said a few times, "We're a long way from St. Louis."



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

Dan Fienen

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 23, 2020, 01:23:33 PM
Quote from: Dan Fienen on July 22, 2020, 08:23:03 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 22, 2020, 06:39:45 PM
There's a reason I'm not LCMS. Interestingly, of all the pre-sem students at Concordia, Portland with me, the only ones who are still on a clergy roster are ELCA.
Further illustrating that we do not share the same the same confession. Perhaps your observation about pre-sem students reveals more about Concordia, Portland than it does about the LCMS.


The LCMS of '69-'71 when there was LCMS/ALC fellowship was a different organization than it is today. In addition, I heard it said a few times, "We're a long way from St. Louis."
The ALC/ELCA has also come a long way from the positions that it took in the late 60s. But you do make my point. Apparently Concordia, Portland in the late 60s felt that it could do its own thing and teach its own way because it felt that St. Louis, i.e. the official LCMS had little control over it. They were a long way from St. Louis, so your observation that your fellow pre-sem students didn't end up staying in the LCMS may well have said more about Portland feeling itself a long from St. Louis than about the LCMS.


And yes, I know that you miss the LCMS of your youth and really, really, wish that it had gone the way that the majority at the St. Louis Sem (and others) were pushing it. Somehow it seems that you still feel betrayed by an LCMS that turned away from the path that the ALC and later ELCA traveled. Personally, I'm glad it did.
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: Tom Eckstein on July 22, 2020, 09:32:40 PM
At the end of Matthew Jesus commands that we baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. When Jesus says "of the Son" He means that He is the Son of God.  If Jesus wasn't referring to Himself there, to whom was He referring?


Yes, he was referring to himself. Within that context, it would be "Son of the Father."

QuoteIn addition, others refer to Jesus as the Son of God:  The Father; the angel speaking to Mary; Peter in Matthew 16; and also by Paul in  various places in his letters.


Yes, others referred to Jesus as "Son of God." Jesus does not (in the synoptics).
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

MaddogLutheran

#235
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 22, 2020, 05:14:39 PM
Where have I ever said that Jesus was not 100% divine?

You fail to grasp the distinction I made in my "atrocious" statement.

No, I didn't, as your reply is nonresponsive, since I never objected to your divine characterization.  Here, let me quote your problematic words again:

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 22, 2020, 02:30:47 PM
I have never argued that Jesus is not divine. I'm arguing that to be truly human, he could not make use of powers beyond those of normal humans.

Quote from: MaddogLutheran on July 22, 2020, 02:55:00 PM
...Jesus was 100% divine AND 100% human.

My objection was not to your words about being divine, but to being human.  Ivory soap being 99.44% pure is not 100% pure.  A truly human being is 100% human, not something less.  The two natures doctrine resides in the mystery of the Incarnation, that their co-existence do not lessen each other.  As several people have subsequently tried to explain, your reasoned objection is novel and without merit.  We do not accept what you insist upon here.

Apparently it continues to be too much to ask for you to be honest in your interactions here.
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

Brian Stoffregen

#236
Quote from: MaddogLutheran on July 23, 2020, 03:30:48 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 22, 2020, 05:14:39 PM
Where have I ever said that Jesus was not 100% divine?

You fail to grasp the distinction I made in my "atrocious" statement.

No, I didn't, as your reply is nonresponsive, since I never objected to your divine characterization.  Here, let me quote your problematic words again:

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 22, 2020, 02:30:47 PM
I have never argued that Jesus is not divine. I'm arguing that to be truly human, he could not make use of powers beyond those of normal humans.

Quote from: MaddogLutheran on July 22, 2020, 02:55:00 PM
...Jesus was 100% divine AND 100% human.

My objection was not to your words about being divine, but to being human.  Ivory soap being 99.44% pure is not 100% pure.  A truly human being is 100% human, not something less.  The two natures doctrine resides in the mystery of the Incarnation, that their co-existence do not lessen each other.  As several people have subsequently tried to explain, your reasoned objection is novel and without merit.  We do not accept what you insist upon here.

Apparently it continues to be too much to ask for you to be honest in your interactions here.


Jesus IS 100% divine and 100% human. I have stated that. What he DOES as the incarnate one is to live 100% as a human. He is born, grows up, suffers, dies, and is raised - just like we have been born, grow up, die, and are promised to be raised.



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

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk