News:


Main Menu
Menu

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.

Show posts Menu

Messages - John Mundinger

#1
How does the 1967 CTCR report regarding contemporary Biblical studies relate to this conversation?  I didn't see a defense of inerrancy in that report.
#2
Quote from: RF on Yesterday at 04:56:07 PMInerancy
From the introduction to the Small Catechism App by CPH:

Curious.  The word, "inerrancy", does not appear in my catechism.  You must be citing a post 1973 edition.
#3
Quote from: Steven W Bohler on Today at 09:00:46 AMThe so-called "errors" he and others like to parade about can be -- and have been (see Arndt's book mentioned earlier) -- explained.  No, I think it is pretty apparent that he likes to see himself as the smartest guy in the room.  After all, thousands of people read his exegetical notes!

Explaining the "errors" does not mean that "inerrant" is an appropriate way to talk about the Scriptures.

I know several folks who read and appreciate Pr. Stoffregen's exegetical notes.  Typically, his comments on the Gospel text are not uniquely his.  He often cites other sources.  And, frankly, his notes are more edifying than anything that you have posted in this forum.
#4
Quote from: Steven W Bohler on Today at 08:38:54 AMIt must be exhausting, trying to catch God in His lies.

Nothing in any of Pr. Stoffregen's posts suggests that he is trying to catch God in God's lies.  Taken together, his posts just demonstrate that "inerrancy" fails to capture the mystery that we confess when we say God's inspired Word is without error.  They also highlight that the preferred interpretations of those who embrace "inerrancy" often are not without error.
#5
Quote from: Donald_Kirchner on Yesterday at 08:20:13 PMSo nice to see, Someonewrites, that you're over your whining, crying "Stop.please. Stop." funk and back to you're arrogant, condescending self. I was beginning to get worried about you! 🙄

If Someone ever returns to the faith, he will not have been lead by "pastors" like you.
#6
Your Turn / Re: The False White Gospel
Today at 08:10:14 AM
Quote from: Dan Fienen on Yesterday at 03:23:49 PMJust how do you define greed?

But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

I believe that each of us is created in the image of a loving God, created to love God and love neighbor.  I believe that each of us is born in sin; born with a broken relationship with God; born selfish.  Greed is an expression of original sin, not just one manifestation of it.

Greed is the extreme selfishness that motivated the establishment of the world's wealthiest nation that also has the highest poverty rate among all of the developed nations.

Bible believing Christians insist that we are a Christian nation.  If so, why do we ignore Amos 8?
#7
Your Turn / Re: The False White Gospel
Yesterday at 03:13:54 PM
Quote from: Dan Fienen on Yesterday at 02:49:08 PMThey are more pessimistic because they don't believe that anything good can happen, or that people can act with due concern for others without them being in control and telling everyone what to do. And more optimistic because they believe that if they are just given the control they demand, they can really produce heaven on earth.


fwiw, I am a realist.  As I have said before, original sin is the one tenet of Christianity for which there is an abundance of empirical evidence.
#8
Your Turn / Re: The False White Gospel
Yesterday at 03:11:15 PM
Quote from: Dan Fienen on Yesterday at 02:45:01 PMI dispute your basic premise, that capitalism is grounded in greed. Human beings will be greedy no matter what socioeconomic system they live under. To that extent, every socioeconomic system is grounded in greed. Realistically, socialism is grounded as much in the greed of those who look around and see others with more than they have and demand that those who have more share it with them as it is in the impulse of those who have more altruistically share with those who have less. Capitalism does not make people greedy. People use it as a way to exercise their greed.

I am not an economics boffin, theology and philosophy are about as complicated as I can handle. Wikipedia begins its article on capitalism by stating, "Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit."

You contradicted yourself in the first paragraph.  And, profit motive is just a politically correct term for greed.

I don't have an easy answer for how to ensure that wages or commensurate with the value of the labor.  But, I'd suggest that corporate opposition to organized labor is prima facia evidence that compensation is less than fair.  Likewise, corporate profits and executive salaries are prima facia evidence that some folks earn a lot more than a salary commensurate with the value of their labor.
#9
Your Turn / Re: The False White Gospel
Yesterday at 01:55:13 PM
Quote from: aletheist on Yesterday at 01:16:55 PM
Quote from: aletheist on Yesterday at 12:29:06 PMGod established individual ownership of property, hence the Seventh Commandment. The problem is that we violate the First Commandment by turning money and possessions into idols, as well as the Ninth and Tenth Commandments by wanting what God has given others instead of being content with what he has given us.
We agree on this much, right?

With significant reservations.  To what extent was the property that you have accumulated done so without violation of the seventh, ninth and tenth commandments, actively or passively? 
#10
Your Turn / Re: The False White Gospel
Yesterday at 12:50:39 PM
Quote from: aletheist on Yesterday at 12:39:24 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on Yesterday at 12:34:49 PMMy recommendation for improvement is to 1) be honest about about our flaws and 2) start living up to the values we claim.
Your false (and uncharitable) assumption here is that those who do not share your political views are not already following these two "recommendations," with the obvious caveat that none of us is capable of fully living up to the values we claim.

Your defense of capitalism acknowledges that it is ground in greed.  Yet, you made an excuse for the greed.  You may not be in as much denial as some regarding the degree to which greed is the foundation of our economy and the consequences to those who are exploited.  Yet, the fact that people are oblivious or, worse, defend greed, is the basis for my comment about honesty.  The comment is founded in fact and, therefore, neither false or uncharitable.
#11
Quote from: aletheist on Yesterday at 12:36:40 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on Yesterday at 12:28:56 PMIn many respects, the 1973 Statement came close to being an exercise in papist authority.
More nonsense.

Those who walked out of the 1973 convention would disagree.
#12
Your Turn / Re: The False White Gospel
Yesterday at 12:34:49 PM
Quote from: Dan Fienen on Yesterday at 11:33:20 AMYou apparently include yourself in the "we" who are too greedy to make corrections. Do you? Or are you only accusing those who do not agree with your preferred corrections as being too greedy to do that. You say that people should be compensated for the value of their labor, no more and no less. How would you suggest that just valuation be determined? And who should be designated to determine that? Since the who would also be humans, who would check that those who determine the value of labor have not themselves become biased or even corrupt? You don't like the system we have, suggest better.

I did include myself.  We are all trapped in it.  But, that doesn't mean we should make excuses for it.  Nor does it mean we should perpetuate status quo, whether we do so passively or actively. 

Consider the work that you do with your community food bank - work which I applaud.  But, think about the values that we claim make America exceptional.  If we lived those values, your food bank would be out of business.  In fact, there never would have been need for it in the first place.

My recommendation for improvement is to 1) be honest about about our flaws and 2) start living up to the values we claim.
#13
Quote from: George Rahn on Yesterday at 11:48:28 AMThe final authority are the scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions despite ELCA constitutional statements and authority.  If it was the other way around, the ELCA  would be imposing a papist view of authority upon itself which makes scriptures secondary.  The scriptures and Lutheran confessions are the final word.

Interpretation also is secondary as it would contradict scripture interpreting itself.

In many respects, the 1973 Statement came close to being an exercise in papist authority.
#14
Quote from: aletheist on Yesterday at 10:58:06 AM
Quote from: John Mundinger on Yesterday at 10:37:27 AMI'm referring to the 1973 statement.  And, note, as you reference it, you prove my point - the statement amended Article II without formally amending Article II.
It did no such thing, any more than the Brief Statement or Statement on Scripture or any other doctrinal resolutions and statements that have been adopted at LCMS Conventions over the last 177 years. Again, members of the LCMS are required to honor and uphold the latter. Why? Because they express its official understanding of true and false doctrine in accordance with Article II of its Constitution. Anyone who disagrees with them is under no obligation to be a member of the LCMS or, for that matter, one of its congregations.

Except that, without the 1973 Statement, there was no "credible" proof that CSL professors were teaching heresy.
#15
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on Yesterday at 10:50:53 AM
Quote from: John Mundinger on Yesterday at 06:54:18 AM
Quote from: aletheist on June 10, 2024, 09:06:21 PMWithin the LCMS, such final authority is vested in the Convention; and in 1973, it determined that "facticity of miracle accounts and their details; historicity of Adam and Eve as real persons; the fall of Adam and Eve into sin as a real event, to which original sin and its imputation upon all succeeding generations of mankind must be traced; the historicity of every detail in the life of Jesus as recorded by the evangelists; predictive prophecies in the Old Testament which are in fact Messianic; the doctrine of angels; [and] the Jonah account" are all examples of "matters which are in fact clearly taught in Scripture," not "theological opinion or exegetical questions."

I thought the final authority was Scripture and the Confessions.
Not really. It's who gets to interpret Scriptures and the Confessions. The ELCA has Churchwide Assemblies who can approve proper interpretations. We approve Social Teaching Statements which suggest interpretations. Our Confession of Faith begins with the Trinity, and statements about Jesus Christ - Scriptures and Confessions come after such key doctrines. Certainly our doctrines about the Trinity and Christ come from Scriptures; but other groups use the same scriptures and come to other interpretations which we consider false: Unitarians, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Jews (same OT), to name some.

People have left the ELCA because they did not agree with decisions made at Churchwide Assemblies.  I am not aware of the ELCA accusing anyone of heresy and removing pastors from the roster because they expressed disagreement with those decisions.  So, I don't think the analogy with the 1973 statement is relevant.
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk