Highlighting the Walkout

Started by PrTim15, February 19, 2024, 10:58:51 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Charles Austin

Pastor Fienen:
There was at least an attempt to deal with matters on a theological basis

Me:
But the professors remain innocent until proven guilty, at least, I think that ought to be the rule. Charges were never drawn up, never filed with appropriate judicial bodies in the Synod.
Iowa-born. Long-time in NY/New Jersey, former LWF staff in Geneva.
ELCA PASTOR, ordained 1967. Former journalist. Retired in Minneapolis. Often critical of the ELCA, but more often a defender of its mission. Ignoring the not-so-subtle rude insults which often appear here.

Dan Fienen

Quote from: Charles Austin on February 20, 2024, 05:49:39 PMPastor Fienen:
There was at least an attempt to deal with matters on a theological basis

Me:
But the professors remain innocent until proven guilty, at least, I think that ought to be the rule. Charges were never drawn up, never filed with appropriate judicial bodies in the Synod.
The professors themselves opted out of that adjudication process when they defaulted on their contracts and calls. They removed themselves from the the authority of those "appropriate judicial bodies" and, as I recall, (hey, it was 50 years ago, memories get fuzzy) specifically refused to cooperate with any such process and refused to recognize their authority to adjudicate. Even if the Board of Control and Synodical administration had proceeded with those judicial processes, it would have been farcical without the professors participation, which they refused.
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

PrTim15

I read "The Preus of Missouri" which was the reporter for the Post Dispatch using his notes, interviews and stories to pull together the history. It was a great read, and to a degree objective. It also gave a great history of the Preus family.

RDPreus

Quote from: John Mundinger on February 20, 2024, 01:26:12 PM
Quote from: RDPreus on February 20, 2024, 12:12:25 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on February 20, 2024, 09:22:15 AM
Quote from: RDPreus on February 20, 2024, 09:07:23 AMHistorical criticism presupposed the errancy of the Bible, but since the Bible is inspired by God, it is inerrant.

That statement is not true.

Historical criticism is the effort to try to understand the original meaning of the text, the literal sense of the text in its historic context and as the first hearers of the text would have understood the text.

IMO, the controversy resulting from historical criticism resulted because several generations of Christians were very comfortable with a literal KJV as the original meaning of the text.


You are misinformed, Mr. Mundinger. Read the following: https://christforus.org/NewSite/index.php/1973/02/26/how-is-the-lutheran-church-to-interpret-and-use-the-old-and-new-testaments/

Scroll down to page 16 where he addresses the historical critical method.  As you describe it, there could be no objection to it.  But you miss the point of controversy.  This wasn't a battle between those with a KJV literalistic understanding versus those who wanted to understand the Bible in its historical context.  It was a battle between proponents of biblical errancy and proponents of biblical inerrancy. 

I'd suggest that your relative's (Father??) assumptions that he articulates on p. 16 are debatable.  Moreover, I'd suggest that it is not sufficient to equate historical criticism with heresy.  If that is the claim, it should have been demonstrated how historical criticism resulted in heresy.  Heresy was charged but specific heresy was not articulated.  It was inferred that biblical errancy was the heresy.  But, the evidence did not demonstrate errors in Scripture, just possible errors in traditional interpretations of certain passages in Scripture.  And, to the extent that people rely on traditional interpretation, it could well be that the problem is not the authority of Scripture but the authority of interpretation.

Can you name me one theologian who advocates the use of the historical critical method and also affirms the inerrancy of Scripture?

MaddogLutheran

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on February 20, 2024, 03:55:44 PM
Quote from: MaddogLutheran on February 20, 2024, 01:39:13 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on February 20, 2024, 09:58:24 AMAgain, I ask, which Bible on your shelf has no errors? [snip]

Yawn.

I'll say it again, for the hundred time.  If you know what those errors are, please share them so that we can be disabused of the notion.  What errors are there that are material to our faith?

Because I for one have no interest in having faith in a God that, having revealed to us mortals that we are disobedient to Him, would mislead us in his revelation to us.  Deception does not grow faith.

Focusing on the possibility that the Bible might have errors is just a license to discard anything inconvenient to contemporary human desire.

I've stated for at least 101 times, read the footnotes in your Bible. They indicate errors in ancient manuscripts. They indicate possible errors in translations.

I've asked for perhaps 99 times for you to tell me which Bible on your shelf has no errors in translation or choice of variant readings.

I didn't just ask for what the errors were.  I asked which errors were material to the faith.

I never denied that all Bibles have errors as we both apparently agree.  As I keep saying, people who assert inerrancy do not deny that such errors exist.  Therefore I feel no need to refute your straw man.  That's not what they mean by inerrancy.  You don't get to tell other people what they believe, even as you continue to attempt to.
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

MaddogLutheran

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on February 20, 2024, 03:58:10 PM
Quote from: MaddogLutheran on February 20, 2024, 01:42:16 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on February 20, 2024, 11:13:21 AMOutside of Tietjen, I don't believe that there were actual heresy charges against any other professors. Well, there is the Matt Becker saga, but that was in Oregon.

Much like, but I think even worse, is stating that "professors are teaching heresy," without naming the professors nor the heresies they are being charged with.

Here's an analogy that might help you understand, as it's something else you (and some of your fellow travelers) strongly believe:  many characterize that the events at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021 were an insurrection, yet not a single individual has been charged with the crime of insurrection.
So, we shouldn't call that event an "insurrection," which by implication, we shouldn't consider those professors to be teaching heresy, since none were actually charged with teaching heresy.
You need to pick a consistent methodology to have any credibility.

Not being charged with heresy doesn't mean not being guilty of those beliefs.  Of course if not shared publicly, it's impossible for a mortal to know.

I never believed Barack Obama when he said (before the Obergefell Supreme Court decision) that marriage is between a man and a woman.  His behavior related to that case (before and after) proved me correct, just like the subsequent behavior of many Seminex exiles, once they were free of the synod's constraints.  I'm not sure that much of their problematic beliefs were indeed heresy, but they did deviate from historic Lutheran practice.  Such disingenuous deceit violated their 8th commandment obligation to the church.
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: Rev. Edward Engelbrecht on February 20, 2024, 05:36:18 PMIf I see dents and scratches on my neighbor's car, do I conclude that it rolled of the production line with those dents and scratches? Of course not. I understand the dents and scratches came later.

In the same way, the textual notes in Bibles don't show me that the divinely inspired Scripture is errant. On the contrary, they tell me much more about the problem of sin since sinners have subsequently made mistakes in copying them.

The variants argument does not alter the divine inspiration of the original texts. One should hold to what Scripture says about itself in Psalm 19:7--11 as traditional Jews and Christians do. (And when Jews hold to that, no one should try to trace the thought to "The Fundamentals" or call them fundamentalists. It's silly. It's clearly age-old teaching. )
I don't believe anyone here as denied the divine inspiration of scriptures. When the topic of inerrancy comes up, there is always some qualifications, such as "the autographs are inerrant" or "the message of salvation is inerrant." To me, it is twisting the definition of inerrant to fit our reality. Because of human sin/errors, our biblical texts and translations are capable of having errors. Thus, our Bibles do not fit the dictionary definition of inerrant: "incapable of being wrong." It becomes a theory about the autographs.

Dan's comments above made me think of arguing that unicorns existed. (They are mentioned nine times in the KJV. Could that be an error?) Can anyone prove that they did not exist?
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: Rev. Edward Engelbrecht on February 20, 2024, 05:36:18 PMIf I see dents and scratches on my neighbor's car, do I conclude that it rolled of the production line with those dents and scratches? Of course not. I understand the dents and scratches came later.

In the same way, the textual notes in Bibles don't show me that the divinely inspired Scripture is errant. On the contrary, they tell me much more about the problem of sin since sinners have subsequently made mistakes in copying them.

The variants argument does not alter the divine inspiration of the original texts. One should hold to what Scripture says about itself in Psalm 19:7--11 as traditional Jews and Christians do. (And when Jews hold to that, no one should try to trace the thought to "The Fundamentals" or call them fundamentalists. It's silly. It's clearly age-old teaching. )
Ah, but should you own that car, even if you have the dents and scratches fixed so that it looks like new, you know that it isn't quite the same finish that it had when it came out of the factory. It can never be that pristine, original car again once it has defects. 

I've heard and used this illustration of studying the Bible. It's like Jacob wrestling with the "man" by the river Jabbok. Only afterwards, when he had been changed and blessed by the "man" did he realize that it had been God. It seems like we are "wrestling" with a book written by other humans, and we can study/wrestle with it as if it were a human book, but afterwards, we will discover that we have been encountered, changed, and blessed by God.

I have quoted Psalm 19:7-11 often in this forum. The Jews do not see the law as always condemning, but a joy and a gift that gives life.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Dan Fienen

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on February 20, 2024, 09:24:09 PM
Quote from: Rev. Edward Engelbrecht on February 20, 2024, 05:36:18 PMIf I see dents and scratches on my neighbor's car, do I conclude that it rolled of the production line with those dents and scratches? Of course not. I understand the dents and scratches came later.

In the same way, the textual notes in Bibles don't show me that the divinely inspired Scripture is errant. On the contrary, they tell me much more about the problem of sin since sinners have subsequently made mistakes in copying them.

The variants argument does not alter the divine inspiration of the original texts. One should hold to what Scripture says about itself in Psalm 19:7--11 as traditional Jews and Christians do. (And when Jews hold to that, no one should try to trace the thought to "The Fundamentals" or call them fundamentalists. It's silly. It's clearly age-old teaching. )
I don't believe anyone here as denied the divine inspiration of scriptures. When the topic of inerrancy comes up, there is always some qualifications, such as "the autographs are inerrant" or "the message of salvation is inerrant." To me, it is twisting the definition of inerrant to fit our reality. Because of human sin/errors, our biblical texts and translations are capable of having errors. Thus, our Bibles do not fit the dictionary definition of inerrant: "incapable of being wrong." It becomes a theory about the autographs.

Dan's comments above made me think of arguing that unicorns existed. (They are mentioned nine times in the KJV. Could that be an error?) Can anyone prove that they did not exist?
Apparently you know exactly what we should mean when we use the term inerrant and since what we say doesn't match w hat you know we must mean we simply don't know what we're talking about. As to your last paragraph, huh? Have you decided that anyone who talks about Biblical inerrancy must believe that the KJV is inerrant so we either must believe in unicorns or accept that the Bible in errant. Sorry Brian. I do not accept that you know better than I do what I mean. Your refutation on my point refutes a position I don't hold.
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: Dan Fienen on February 20, 2024, 11:38:56 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on February 20, 2024, 09:24:09 PM
Quote from: Rev. Edward Engelbrecht on February 20, 2024, 05:36:18 PMIf I see dents and scratches on my neighbor's car, do I conclude that it rolled of the production line with those dents and scratches? Of course not. I understand the dents and scratches came later.

In the same way, the textual notes in Bibles don't show me that the divinely inspired Scripture is errant. On the contrary, they tell me much more about the problem of sin since sinners have subsequently made mistakes in copying them.

The variants argument does not alter the divine inspiration of the original texts. One should hold to what Scripture says about itself in Psalm 19:7--11 as traditional Jews and Christians do. (And when Jews hold to that, no one should try to trace the thought to "The Fundamentals" or call them fundamentalists. It's silly. It's clearly age-old teaching. )
I don't believe anyone here as denied the divine inspiration of scriptures. When the topic of inerrancy comes up, there is always some qualifications, such as "the autographs are inerrant" or "the message of salvation is inerrant." To me, it is twisting the definition of inerrant to fit our reality. Because of human sin/errors, our biblical texts and translations are capable of having errors. Thus, our Bibles do not fit the dictionary definition of inerrant: "incapable of being wrong." It becomes a theory about the autographs.

Dan's comments above made me think of arguing that unicorns existed. (They are mentioned nine times in the KJV. Could that be an error?) Can anyone prove that they did not exist?
Apparently you know exactly what we should mean when we use the term inerrant and since what we say doesn't match w hat you know we must mean we simply don't know what we're talking about. As to your last paragraph, huh? Have you decided that anyone who talks about Biblical inerrancy must believe that the KJV is inerrant so we either must believe in unicorns or accept that the Bible in errant. Sorry Brian. I do not accept that you know better than I do what I mean. Your refutation on my point refutes a position I don't hold.
No, I don't know what you mean by the word "inerrant," because it doesn't quite match what an English dictionary says the word means. I've been accused a number of times of making words mean whatever I want them to mean. However, I still use meanings that a Lexicon has for those words. 

You completely missed the point about the unicorns. Arguing that the autographs are inerrant is like arguing that unicorns existed. Since we have no actual autographs nor remains of unicorns, how can we support that argument? 
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

RF

'Cause I gotta' have faith
I gotta have faith
Because I gotta have faith, faith, faith
I got to have faith, faith, faith

... George Michael

John Mundinger

Quote from: RDPreus on February 20, 2024, 07:12:52 PMCan you name me one theologian who advocates the use of the historical critical method and also affirms the inerrancy of Scripture?

Not as you define "inerrancy".  But, I don't think you can cite one Scripture passage to support your definition of "inerrancy".  And, I don't think you can provide a rational explanation for why Lutherans would look to folks like Harold Linsell as an authority on Scripture.

More to the point, can you name one Lutheran theologian who does not believe that Scripture is God's inspired Word that reveals God's Incarnate Word and that that message is without error?  And, given the centrality of that message to Lutheran theology, why it is so important to argue about whether Genesis 1-2 should be read literally; or whether Paul wrote all of the letters attributed to Paul; etc. etc.

We trust in God's promises by faith and, because of faith, God declares us righteous.  We do not reason our way into faith.  And, I'd suggest those who insist on an inerrant Scripture are too concerned about the underpinnings of their faith falling apart if a few of the trivial sticks are removed.

Lifelong Evangelical Lutheran layman

Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbour, does not yet understand them as he ought.  St. Augustine

John Mundinger

#57
Quote from: Dan Fienen on February 20, 2024, 05:02:14 PMThis whole discussion has become little more than an exercise of willfully talking past each other and refusing to directly address the concerns of each other.

I agree.  I'd also suggest that the consistent use of "buzz words", like inerrancy, Gospel-reductionism, etc. contribute to the problem.  Such words might mean something to those who regularly use them, but they are code-words for whole paragraphs, the content of which doesn't get added to the conversation.

Quote from: Dan Fienen on February 20, 2024, 11:38:56 PMApparently you know exactly what we should mean when we use the term inerrant and since what we say doesn't match w hat you know we must mean we simply don't know what we're talking about.

I don't know exactly what people mean when they use the term, inerrant.  And, to be honest, it gets even more confusing when folks acknowledge the copy errors to which Pr. Stoffregen refers but still suggest that he thinks the autographs are "inerrant" (whatever that term is supposed to mean).

Quote from: Dan Fienen on February 20, 2024, 05:02:14 PMIn contrast, for the Bible we have thousands of really old copies and partial copies of the Bible to compare. There is plenty of material for the textual critics to work with. While we do not have the autographs, we can come quite close to reconstructing them.

I generally agree.  But, I do not understand how it is possible to reconstruct the autographs without employing all of the tools in the historical-critical tool bag.
Lifelong Evangelical Lutheran layman

Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbour, does not yet understand them as he ought.  St. Augustine

John Mundinger

Quote from: Rev. Edward Engelbrecht on February 20, 2024, 05:36:18 PMIn the same way, the textual notes in Bibles don't show me that the divinely inspired Scripture is errant. On the contrary, they tell me much more about the problem of sin since sinners have subsequently made mistakes in copying them.

I think there is room for common ground around that statement.  And, I would add to that, it also speaks to the problem of sin because all of the participants in this conversation are sinners.

Quote from: Rev. Edward Engelbrecht on February 20, 2024, 05:36:18 PMThe variants argument does not alter the divine inspiration of the original texts. One should hold to what Scripture says about itself in Psalm 19:7--11 as traditional Jews and Christians do. (And when Jews hold to that, no one should try to trace the thought to "The Fundamentals" or call them fundamentalists. It's silly. It's clearly age-old teaching. )

I think there is room for common ground in this statement.  But, I'd note that it still does not resolve questions like whether the Genesis autograph was actually written by Moses or whether the author of Genesis 1 - 2 intended the audience to read those passages literally.
Lifelong Evangelical Lutheran layman

Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbour, does not yet understand them as he ought.  St. Augustine

RDPreus

Quote from: John Mundinger on February 21, 2024, 06:18:38 AM
Quote from: RDPreus on February 20, 2024, 07:12:52 PMCan you name me one theologian who advocates the use of the historical critical method and also affirms the inerrancy of Scripture?

Not as you define "inerrancy".  But, I don't think you can cite one Scripture passage to support your definition of "inerrancy".  And, I don't think you can provide a rational explanation for why Lutherans would look to folks like Harold Linsell as an authority on Scripture.

More to the point, can you name one Lutheran theologian who does not believe that Scripture is God's inspired Word that reveals God's Incarnate Word and that that message is without error?  And, given the centrality of that message to Lutheran theology, why it is so important to argue about whether Genesis 1-2 should be read literally; or whether Paul wrote all of the letters attributed to Paul; etc. etc.

We trust in God's promises by faith and, because of faith, God declares us righteous.  We do not reason our way into faith.  And, I'd suggest those who insist on an inerrant Scripture are too concerned about the underpinnings of their faith falling apart if a few of the trivial sticks are removed.



"Not as you define inerrancy," you write.  But you know perfectly well that my definition of inerrancy is what the word actually means, and when the term is used to describe a view of the Scriptures that says there are errors and contradictions in the Bible it is being used dishonestly.  Luther wrote, "The Scriptures have never erred."  He wrote "It is impossible that Scripture should contradict itself; it only appears so to senseless and obstinate hypocrites."  Inerrancy means that the Bible doesn't err.  It doesn't make mistakes.  Everything it says is true.  If it says something happened, it happened.  If you want a further explanation, read A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles.

We Lutherans did not look to Harold Lindsell to teach us about the authority of Scripture.  Our own theological tradition was rich in providing proof for this doctrine.  It is true that many LCMS Lutherans worked with inerrantists from other denominations to produce a common statement on inerrancy at a meeting in Chicago in the Fall of 1978.  It was the kind of ecumenical endeavor in which we could participate without violating the biblical prohibition of unionism.  The notion that Lutherans got their view of inerrancy from outside Lutheranism was debunked by Milton Rudnick in his doctoral dissertation from the St. Louis seminary in 1963.

Does the Bible teach biblical inerrancy?  Yes. 

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:20-21)

Jesus answered and said to them, "Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God? (Mark 12:24)

Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed.  And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:31-32)

"The Scripture cannot be broken." (John 10:35)

I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.  However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth." (John 16:12-13a)

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk