Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Brian Stoffregen

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 2972
1
Your Turn / Re: Accomodationism in the American Church
« on: Today at 01:39:51 AM »
The gospel is doctrine.


Not in my understanding. If it were, then salvation would be through agreeing with doctrine or following the teachings of Jesus. The emphasis is centered on us rather than God.

2
Your Turn / Re: Accomodationism in the American Church
« on: Today at 01:38:14 AM »
Don't be willfully obtuse.  I distinguished between the two.  You, and people like you, have argued for over 13 years that accommodation on sexual morality would have no effect on orthodoxy.  I wish you had been correct.  I truly do.

However, you have been wrong.  Since the ELCA accommodated same-sex marriage, it has also become increasingly heterodox on doctrine.  Just for example, the ELCA now tolerates and celebrates heterodoxy in regard to the first four articles of the Augsburg Confession.  Namely, the Trinity, Original Sin, Christ, and Justification.  The list could go on.

Please show where the ELCA where the ELCA has become heterodox concerning the Trinity, Original Sin, Christ, and Justification. However, could you be sliding into the heterodoxy position of salvation by correct doctrine?

1. Trinity: Invoking the Spirit of the North, South, East and West instead of Father, Son and Holy Spirit at a synod assembly.  Invoking the River, Estuary and Sea instead of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.


Yes, there was a prayer to the four directions. It was not addressed to the four directions, but to the Creator, to the Great Spirit, and in the name of Jesus. This is the closing paragraph:

Creator, you bent the earth like a bow until it was joined together into one, round, shining circle. At your word the land was drawn into mountains and deserts, forests and plains. You gathered the waters together into rivers, lakes and seas. Many times we have broken the circle of your creation by greed and violence, and we have shattered the lives of others. Creator, as we gather the waters you have given us for life, renew the circle of the earth, and turn the hearts of all people to one another, that they and all the earth may live and be drawn toward you, Through the power of your Son, who lives with you and the Holy Spirit, in the circle of the Trinity, forever One.
Amen.

I don't know where you got "River, Estuary, and Sea." I searched all five worship folders, and it doesn't occur. The closest I found was "rivers, lakes, and seas," which is in the above paragraph.
Quote
2.  Original Sin:  Denying the need for redemption from Sin because all are saved in principle.

Where do you find that the ELCA has said that? Is it like your misquotes from CWA2022?

Quote
3:  Christology:  Denying the doctrine of Christ by treating Jesus of Nazareth as a mere avatar of the eternal Christ.

Where do you find that the ELCA has said that?

Quote
4.  Conflating Law and Gospel and therefore undermining the doctrine of Justification, by preaching the good work of social justice as the Gospel itself. 

It's probable that every pastor has done that - or had parishioners hear that rather than the Gospel. Where do you find that the ELCA has done that?

Quote
Quote
Can you affirm that as important as those doctrines are for properly understanding Christianity, they aren't the means of salvation?

Of course.  Doctrine exists for the sake of the Gospel, not of its own sake.  Forget doctrine and you will soon lose the Gospel for one of the many false gospels that have appeared over the last 2000 years.  If you had ever bothered to read a book by Robert Jenson or Gerhard Forde, you would know this.  Unfortunately, most our bishops and church leaders have forgotten this too.  Thus we are rapidly sliding into a mix of Gnosticism and neo-Paganism.

If forgetting doctrine means that we lose the Gospel, then the Gospel has become doctrine rather than the salvation God gives by grace through Jesus Christ. (I recognize that my statement is doctrine; but I also believe it's true even for people who don't agree with it.) Perhaps you have a different understanding of Gospel. Perhaps you limit this salvation only to the people who reach out and receive it by faith - which becomes semi-Pelagianism. If we have to do anything to help God out with our salvation we are semi-Pelagianists.

3
Your Turn / Re: Accomodationism in the American Church
« on: Yesterday at 04:42:15 PM »
Don't be willfully obtuse.  I distinguished between the two.  You, and people like you, have argued for over 13 years that accommodation on sexual morality would have no effect on orthodoxy.  I wish you had been correct.  I truly do.

However, you have been wrong.  Since the ELCA accommodated same-sex marriage, it has also become increasingly heterodox on doctrine.  Just for example, the ELCA now tolerates and celebrates heterodoxy in regard to the first four articles of the Augsburg Confession.  Namely, the Trinity, Original Sin, Christ, and Justification.  The list could go on.


Please show where the ELCA where the ELCA has become heterodox concerning the Trinity, Original Sin, Christ, and Justification. However, could you be sliding into the heterodoxy position of salvation by correct doctrine?


Can you affirm that as important as those doctrines are for properly understanding Christianity, they aren't the means of salvation?

4
Your Turn / Re: Accomodationism in the American Church
« on: Yesterday at 02:58:33 PM »
This is part of an article I wrote for FL eight years ago after the Obergefell ruling. I've put in bold the parts I think relate well to the First Things article on David French. I remember what little feedback I got on the article being surprise that I suspected Evangelicals would prove unreliable.

....However it came to be, the fact remains that it was a long fought but ultimately resounding victory for progressives, decay being progress of a sort. And to those for whom everything is reducible to power struggles, victory by bogus judicial fiat counts the same as any other. As athletes say, a win is a win. Religious leaders who have no king but Caesar will shrug, say their hands are tied and reluctantly just go with the new reality, while those who dare not call thing what it is will naturally laud these rulings which require everyone to pretend (at least officially) that two men are husband and wife. But American churches in line with historic Christianity on this issue increasingly find themselves in a new and foreign context.

So what will happen in and to the LCMS as a result of this new context and what should we do about it now that we’ve (possibly) forgotten how to be strangers in a strange land? Allow me to offer first two predictions and then two prescriptions.

First prediction: this will not unify the LCMS. I know, I know, going way out on a limb there. But there is always the idea floating around that becoming an embattled minority will galvanize people who share a cause to put aside other differences. At first it may seem like this will happen in the LCMS; the various camps will rally together around a common identity as torch-bearers of traditional marriage. And that may seem to be happening for a little while, but it won’t last. I truly hope I’m wrong on this (stranger things have happened, I readily admit), but I think Evangelicals will soon go wobbly and this cultural change will, given enough time, simply provide another stage on which the same LCMS play is enacted.


The men I know who are married to other men are husband and husband.

As more folks within the Evangelical (and LCMS) camps have friends and relatives who live together without marriage or marry a same-sex partner, many will find ways to accommodate them. In a similar way, a generation or two ago, conservative churches accommodated divorced and remarried folks; or folks who married outside the faith, e.g., Lutherans who married Roman Catholics. What had been seen as forbidden, or at least discouraged, had become acceptable (or at least tolerated) rather than ostracize friends and family.

The question, however, is whether Christian orthodoxy can withstand such accommodation.  The ELCA has been undergoing and experiment on that question for 13 year, with other oldline Protestant groups doing so for a longer time.  The evidence so far is that accommodation on sexuality leads to accommodation on doctrine in general.  In terms of doctrine, apart from its newfound belief in apostolic succession, the ELCA is hardly distinguishable from the UUC.


Methinks that your understanding of Christian orthodoxy is more about a particular morality than it is about orthodoxy: we are sinners who are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ, God's son, our Savior.

5
Your Turn / Re: THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY
« on: Yesterday at 02:54:23 PM »
When our government bans air conditioning in all government buildings in Washington D.C. (which served adequately as a our capital for a long time before the invention of A/C) I'll begin to suspect they believe what they preach. Until then, they prove they care more about being comfortable than reducing their carbon footprint.


Why all or nothing? They can (and so can we) get the most efficient air conditioning that we can. We can also make sure that our buildings are well insulated so that we waste as little as possible. We've done both of those over the past year. The new, high efficiency air condition wasn't cheap, but he felt it is necessary for our summer heat. (We still haven't turned on the furnace yet.) We also have spent a month to two months in the northern U.S. in the summer and raise the thermostat so we are using less energy when we are being sunbirds.

6
Your Turn / Re: THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY
« on: Yesterday at 02:49:29 PM »
How exactly are you going to get "many more" Americans to use mass transit?  Sounds authoritarian.  Exactly how much energy would that save?  Do we have enough non-fossil sources to provide for that?


Part of the way they did it in my home-town (years after I had left, but my brother is still there,) was to limit the parking places downtown, where there is parking, it became very expensive, they had built the freeway in a gully - so it can't be made wider to handle more traffic. In other words, they made riding the light rail from the suburbs to downtown more attractive, cheaper, (and in some cases faster) than driving one's own vehicle.


Our son in Seattle walks to work - a little more than a mile. Walking (or bicycling) is faster than driving or riding a bus. (He doesn't own a car, neither does our other son in Denver. He rides an electric bicycle or walks or uses mass transit to get around town.)

Quote
I see you are throwing your lot in with Greta and the German Greens who also think fossil fuels aren't necessary for life.  As I said, do you even understand the consequences of that?  Pretty sure spouting platitudes would offend Jesus, just like the religious leaders did with whom he battled.  This is not simply a problem of the right people lacking the good will to act.


Nope. Fossil fuels are probably necessary for our lifestyles; but we can also learn to use less energy from fossil fuels. Monthly I get a report from our electric company on how much energy we are using compared to our neighbors. We are always considerably lower than others in our neighborhood. All our lights are LEDs. Our stove, furnace, dryer, and water heater, are natural gas. (Still a fossil fuel.) We make a point of turning off lights when we're not in a room. We just installed new windows with a high insolation rating. When a friend offered to sell and install solar panels at his cost, he discovered that it wasn't worth it for what we are paying in electricity and our age. We wouldn't get a return on our investment. This was also confirmed by a solar company who did a comparison. We also checked out the different rate plans from the electric company and seek to use the cheapest one - which means not using electric appliances during the peak hours (recently changed to 4-7 PM).


Quote
I continue to find your willful ignorance and obtuseness positively chilling.  Yet you felt the need to respond (as you did) because you had to offer a contrary without substance.  This is why I don't take the climate alarmists serious.  Because most are not serious people.  They will not reckon with the consequences of their policies.


Even if there is no climate emergency, doing such things to cut our use of fossil fuels is better for the planet, is often cost savings for the consumer, and it doesn't hurt anyone. If there is a climate emergency, such acts may be saving our planet and the people from future disasters.

7
Your Turn / Re: Accomodationism in the American Church
« on: Yesterday at 01:01:16 PM »
This is part of an article I wrote for FL eight years ago after the Obergefell ruling. I've put in bold the parts I think relate well to the First Things article on David French. I remember what little feedback I got on the article being surprise that I suspected Evangelicals would prove unreliable.

....However it came to be, the fact remains that it was a long fought but ultimately resounding victory for progressives, decay being progress of a sort. And to those for whom everything is reducible to power struggles, victory by bogus judicial fiat counts the same as any other. As athletes say, a win is a win. Religious leaders who have no king but Caesar will shrug, say their hands are tied and reluctantly just go with the new reality, while those who dare not call thing what it is will naturally laud these rulings which require everyone to pretend (at least officially) that two men are husband and wife. But American churches in line with historic Christianity on this issue increasingly find themselves in a new and foreign context.

So what will happen in and to the LCMS as a result of this new context and what should we do about it now that we’ve (possibly) forgotten how to be strangers in a strange land? Allow me to offer first two predictions and then two prescriptions.

First prediction: this will not unify the LCMS. I know, I know, going way out on a limb there. But there is always the idea floating around that becoming an embattled minority will galvanize people who share a cause to put aside other differences. At first it may seem like this will happen in the LCMS; the various camps will rally together around a common identity as torch-bearers of traditional marriage. And that may seem to be happening for a little while, but it won’t last. I truly hope I’m wrong on this (stranger things have happened, I readily admit), but I think Evangelicals will soon go wobbly and this cultural change will, given enough time, simply provide another stage on which the same LCMS play is enacted.



The men I know who are married to other men are husband and husband.


As more folks within the Evangelical (and LCMS) camps have friends and relatives who live together without marriage or marry a same-sex partner, many will find ways to accommodate them. In a similar way, a generation or two ago, conservative churches accommodated divorced and remarried folks; or folks who married outside the faith, e.g., Lutherans who married Roman Catholics. What had been seen as forbidden, or at least discouraged, had become acceptable (or at least tolerated) rather than ostracize friends and family.

8
Your Turn / Re: THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY
« on: Yesterday at 12:51:54 PM »
I agree about both dueling experts and that the most hysterical ones are not objective.  But let me suggest this...

Say I agree with the most dire climate predictions:  now what?  I've used this approach dealing with several people who are emotional to the point of hysteria. I accept for the sake of argument all your science.  So what?

If we do, as Greta Thunberg demands ("how dare you!"), and stop using fossil fuels tomorrow...What comes next?  You've been freed! ::)  I can tell you for one thing that millions of people will die, and it will be the most vulnerable that the caring people allegedly care about the most.

Of course, Greta has recently revealed herself as not just concerned with the environment, but also against capitalism.  This is my shocked face.   There is a real but not well covered split among climate activists between those who are truly trying to find alternatives, and those who would hijack the movement to achieve other, longstanding political goals.  Especially their disdain for the modern industrial society we live in.  (This is the problem with the Greens in Germany.  They don't just hate/fear nuclear energy, they want plants decommissioned and replaced with nothing, so the country has less energy which means less industrial and yes, economic! activity.)

The reason nothing much will change about our energy sources is that we do not yet have the technology to replace fossil fuels.  It's not like people aren't trying, they are numerous incentives to do so.  It simply does not exist.  I for one would like us to invent them, because we will eventually run out of fossil fuels, no matter the global temperature.

You can't replace something with nothing.  I challenge anyone who says we need to DO SOMETHING about the climate emergency to be specific.  And in that specificity, tell me exactly how much of a difference what you are proposing would make.  And the negative unintended consequences.

Because that's what I think Jesus would do.   ;)


How much fossil fuel did Jesus use? We have records of generations of humans living without the use of fossil fuels. They aren't necessary for life. (They are necessary for our life-styles.) The more rational among us don't talk about eliminating fossil fuels, but finding ways to reduce our dependency on them. Many more Americans could use mass transit for commuting to work. We could all switch to lower power LED lights in our houses.


It also seems to me that many, if not most of the politicians promise to replace what they don't like with an unnamed something (which often turns out to be nothing).

9
Your Turn / Re: THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY
« on: Yesterday at 12:45:51 PM »
As much fun as having dueling experts may be. (My expert can beat up your expert, or shall we have our experts whip out their CVs and measure to see whose is longer?) It does little to resolve this issue. Climate is the product of a myriad complex factors that we have not yet been able to adequately understand, quantify, or model. Earth's climate has been widely variable. The geological record suggests all the way from ice ages so extreme that glaciation extended to the tropics (the snowball earth hypothesis) to warm eras when the earth had no polar ice caps and average temperature was above 80º or 90º F., all without human interference. No one has been able to model earth climate adequately enough to predict with confidence disaster within 10 or 20 years, although that has not stopped the predictors. In actuality, the many predictions of doom and gloom that have not proven accurate have done more to discredit the warnings of climatology in the eyes of ordinary people than the efforts of the experts who declare that there is no climate emergency.


Pollution of the earth by humans is a real problem and has been so for most of human history. Warming of the climate is just one factor. In the Bible, farming is the oldest profession (God placed Adam in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it). The earth is the Lord's, and we are to be stewards of the earth, use it for human needs but be good stewards of it. Polluting is not being good stewards. Over my lifetime, pollution has been greatly reduced. I remember stories my mother told me of when they first got married, she would send my father off in the morning with a crisp white shirt, by the time he returned home, it would be dingy grey. Smog was a much greater problem than it is now. We have made great improvements in reducing pollution and the severity of pollution, although much more remains to be done.


It is not entirely clear how much of the changes in climate that are observed (reductions in sea ice and glaciation, changes in vegetation and habitat, etc.) are natural variation and how much is manmade. Climate, especially on a continental or global scale, is exceedingly complex. Even so, it seems at least prudent to reduce the human footprint on climate. It is unwise to simply assume that what we do has little or no effect. If climate modelling has not yet reached the precision to accurately predict human impact, neither is it precise enough to rule out human impact. Prudence suggests that continue to lessen potential human impacts on climate.


The problem with panicked draconian measures is that in the rush to do something, anything that promises to reduce human induced climate change, we may end up in dead ends, imposing restrictions that do little long run reduction, or even make things worse. Every remedy and every technology for energy production has side effects. Hydroelectric projects alter water flow, habitats, and often fish migration. Wind turbines produce local noise pollution, kill birds, the manufacture of the turbines produces pollution, and there is the problem of disposal of worn-out turbines (and especially early models proved less durable than projected). Transition to electric vehicles has problems of its own. The vehicles are currently significantly more expensive, imposing a harsh burden on average income users. (It was all well and good for a late-night talk show host to make light of the sharp increase in the cost of gasoline, just drive electric. The increase didn't affect him, he drove an electric, he could afford to on his salary.) There is also the severe problem of ramping up the production of the batteries necessary for the vehicles, the pollution generated by mining the metals needed for the batteries, manufacturing them, and then disposing of them when they wear out. That does not include the danger attendant to current battery technology. Most green energy sources, wind and solar, are somewhat intermittent and leave us with the need to store energy when surplus is available (batteries again) and provide for users when it is not (nighttime or calm winds). These may not be insurmountable obstacles, but time will be necessary to resolve the issues, and putting all our eggs in those baskets can exact a real human toll while the technology matures. Oh, and likely one form of non-carbon-based energy production that will likely be a necessary part of the package will be nuclear.


So, can we stop with the Chicken Little schtick and be more realistic about what we actually know and also stop acting like the human cost from the draconian and likely unrealistic quick fixes proposed and imposed is negligible? I do believe that reducing the human carbon footprint on the planet is wise, good stewardship, and in the long run necessary. But panic, especially panic that has now lasted more than half a century with repeated unrealized apocalyptic predictions, does not help. Neither does watching experts and activists jetting off to conferences where they demand that everybody else make great sacrifices for the common good, and then board their jets (often private jets that have a much higher CO2 per passenger mile rate than even commercial aircraft) to fly home to their cozy domiciles. The rest of us are not impressed by their demands of sacrifice that they do not share.


Thank you for the illustration of smog - a climate-related issue that humans caused and humans have been able to reduce.

10
Your Turn / Re: THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY
« on: November 24, 2022, 08:13:28 PM »
I am aware of how the process is supposed to work. I am also aware of the fact that original sin is not left at the lab door. Witness the lying and manipulation over Covid, its origins, and the efficacy of the vaccines.


What I heard was scientist making their best guesses on the information they had about COVID and their experiences with other contagions. As they learned more, their best guesses changed.

11
Your Turn / Re: Was Paul Aware of the Apostolic Council?
« on: November 24, 2022, 04:06:31 PM »
Of course you did.  As the Russian missile attack AP story demonstrates, provide two sources to verify authenticity.

I would have quoted from the official minutes if they were available.

So far I haven't seen you offer anything official about the actions that you seem to be commenting on. In fact, I've found nothing that indicates there was an amendment to the original motion.

12
Your Turn / Re: THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY
« on: November 24, 2022, 04:03:43 PM »

Actually, my nephew, a college professor, receives grants to study and test particular issues. He is not told what he's supposed to find.

And when the Foundation that gave him the money finds out that it didn't get thr results they wanted, they of course renew the grant for the next year, and probably increase cause he's such an honest guy

Brian- you share these anecdotes or connections as if they are mike drop moments and as if no one else might have similar experience. My undergrad work was in Environmental Science. I have seen the sausage made up close and personal.


So, why are your anecdotes more authoritative than mine? I don't discount your experience. There are lenders who are seeking answers to promote their agendas. There are also agencies who give money purely for scientific research - without hidden agendas. There are scientists who will not accept money if they lender has an expected outcome.


The bottom line is that the results are published. Other experts can review the experiments - and duplicate them and/or criticize improper steps. It's repeating the experiments by other labs with the same results that begins to approach an established truth. One experiment truth does not make.

13
Your Turn / Re: Was Paul Aware of the Apostolic Council?
« on: November 24, 2022, 01:34:57 PM »
I don't say it is unworkable.  I say that there is no Lutheran denomination in America that is interested in making it work.  The ELCA Churchwide Assembly, by a vast majority (88% I am told) voted to abandon that experiment in 2022.  Every Lutheran denomination in America is one way or the other.  There is no middle.  That's not a comment on your exegesis or your good will, just a lament that the day for compromise seems to be over.

Perhaps. Below is the highlight of the resolution.

ASSEMBLY Two-Thirds Vote Required
ACTION YES-708; NO-93
CA22.03.23 To authorize a possible revision of the social statement on Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust which reconsiders the church’s current concept of the four positions of bound conscience. This revision would focus on pages 19-21 (“lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships) and any other references to the four positions of bound conscience.


A revision of the statement is necessary, I believe, not so much because of the four positions of bound conscience, (I think that they accurate express the convictions of people in the ELCA,) but because it was created before same-sex marriages were recognized throughout the U.S., so "lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships" was used.

What about the text of the amendment?

The minutes of the Assembly have not been posted, so I don't have the full text or the discussion.

Then why didn't you say so, instead of pretending that the resolution was what I was talking about?  You knew that I was referring to the amendment.


 Nothing I found on actions of CWA22 mentioned an amendment.

Rather than just "a highlight" which isn't much more than the title of the action, reading the "Summary" itself may help reveal what happened
(or given possible secret handshake code/jargon, maybe not...).  Anyway,

https://download.elca.org/ELCA%20Resource%20Repository/Summary_of_2022_CWA_Actions.pdf?_ga=2.120743432.1823308662.1669307740-352950788.1669307740  .


That's what I copied and pasted in the purple.

14
Your Turn / Re: THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY
« on: November 24, 2022, 01:32:39 PM »
Pastor Preus:
Is it possible that scientists who work for oil companies may have more leeway to question the established opinion on climate change?
Me:
Possible? It’s not only possible it’s required. Scientists who work for oil companies are likely to report that their findings support the oil companies’ actions aimed at bringing the oil companies greater profit.

But the scientists working at universities and institutions dependent upon government grants, or funding from NPOs with ideological biases are free to pursue the pur science without fear of having to please their masters.   Uh huh. It's cute that you think that.


And there are scientists working for environmental groups whose biases go the other direction.


There are also groups like Consumer Reports that insist on not receiving moneys from anyone who might influence their findings.


Actually, my nephew, a college professor, receives grants to study and test particular issues. He is not told what he's supposed to find.

15
Your Turn / Re: THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY
« on: November 24, 2022, 01:26:28 PM »
Tom,

I've encountered Koonin's book and been tempted to use bits of it in an undergraduate course I teach. The problem with him is again that he's not a climate expert. If you look at his dissertation, he's trained in quantum mechanics. He also had a high-profile position at BP. He's not an atmospheric scientist and his graduate students have called him out on his narrative in Unsettled.

My impression is that if you look at atmospheric scientists and cyrologists and oceanographers, there is a really strong consensus that global warming is real and problematic for our ability to maintain our ways of life as we know them right now.

The dissent tends to come from physicists and geologists who have worked for the oil industry, or parts of the government like DOE that have traditionally been sympathetic to the industry. Again me claiming to be a reformation expert.

This dynamic helps illuminate the "rage" against dissent. There isn't really significant dissent among climate experts. The the dissenters are folks on the fringe of the discipline or not even on the fringe who claim expertise. Maybe the analogy is the pastor down the street with no MDiv but with a congregation twice the size of one of our Lutheran parishes that siphons off members because "they're so spirit filled." You can't have a doctrinal discussion with that pastor because he'll move the goalposts over and over again, all the while claiming to be rooted in biblical truth.

Or the analogy is the liberal UCC or ELCA pastor who assures you that Paul didn't write the Pastoral Epistles because the consensus of scholarship says he didn't.  Holding to the received opinion in academia is critical to ones' acceptance.  Just as a theologian seeking acceptance will think twice before breaking with the received wisdom, so will a climatologist.  No one wants to be ostracized.  Is it possible that the scientists who are regarded as "climate experts" must submit to a certain ideology that is unprovable scientifically as a precondition for such acceptance?  Is it possible that scientists who work for oil companies may have more leeway to question the established opinion on climate change?


I suspect that well-trained LCMS Ph.D.s in biblical studies are likely to conclude that Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles. They can logically defend their position, just as well as more liberal scholars argue for a post-Paul authorship.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 2972