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 - Coach-Rev

Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33]
Your Turn / Re: "in accordance with the scriptures"
« on: April 20, 2017, 10:26:37 AM »
Those OT sacrifices, in and of themselves, did not save or bring forgiveness.  It is only in that they pointed forward to Christ and His sacrifice that they had any effect.  Else there would be no need for Jesus.  See Isaiah 1:11 and especially Hebrews 9-10.

The Jewish people didn't need "saving". They were already God's people.

The Torah is clear that certain sacrifices brought forgiveness.


Forgiveness by God is also found in the Psalms and prophets. In regards to Isaiah, see 33:24b and 55:7. While insincere sacrifices brought God's wrath; sincere repentance for sins still brought forgiveness. There is forgiveness with the God of the Old Testament (without any mention of Christ).

Hebrews is clear that such sacrifice is not eternal:  Hebrews 10:34
"But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins,  because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."

This is to say nothing of Psalm 40, quoted also in Hebrews 10.

and again:  Hebrews 10:11
"Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins."

Perhaps you should try to comprehend the Bible as a whole and stop divorcing the two Testaments.

Your Turn / Re: "in accordance with the scriptures"
« on: April 19, 2017, 12:41:26 PM »
I've always taken that to mean that it is in accordance with the Gospel accounts, which tell us that he rose again on the third day.  I'm unclear as to why this is even a question?

Because Paul was writing before the Gospel accounts, and certainly before they were regarded as Scripture.

Except that the Nicene Creed (I'm appealing to the creedal language, not to what it may or may not have quoted from Paul) was at a time when the canon had been established as Scripture.   Then there is also that Paul quotes as Scripture Luke 10:7 in 1 Timothy 5.  this becomes problematic if we assume that the canon was only the canon when the church said it was the canon, at a later date.  Paul's usage sure seems to indicate that at least Luke's Gospel was already being considered Scripture.

Your Turn / Re: "in accordance with the scriptures"
« on: April 19, 2017, 08:46:41 AM »
I've always taken that to mean that it is in accordance with the Gospel accounts, which tell us that he rose again on the third day.  I'm unclear as to why this is even a question?  Seems pretty simple and straightforward to me.  Why make it into something it is not?  ???

Your Turn / Re: Seven Years Ago
« on: April 12, 2017, 11:00:37 PM »
Since no one wants to speak of the latest Coptic martyrs, Facebook told me this posted seven years ago today.

Kyrie eleison.  :'(

Indeed.  Jeff simply notes that it seems particularly odd that a thread on such has, like so many others before it, devolved into a discussion on sex yet again.  SMH... :-[

Your Turn / Re: Worship and the use of video
« on: April 02, 2017, 03:51:12 PM »
We have also been exploring ways to provide a live stream video of the service, in an effort to connect people in town/shut ins/etc. 

We are going to try a "Mevo" livestream camera which is on order, designed for just such a thing.  Anyone have any experience with them?

Your Turn / Re: Gnosticism: Alive and well within Lutheranism
« on: March 31, 2017, 09:30:01 AM »
A phrase I heard at times while serving on synod staff when one was advocating an idea or program was, "he/she/they get it."  I found it ironic that the church, which one would hope to be an inclusive community spoke so exclusively.   This seems at the heart of what Pastor Austin wrote - sometimes our arrogance of just who gets it can actually get in the way of theology.

I'm uncertain as to why you find it so arrogant that we claim salvation comes through Christ alone?  If someone fails to acknowledge that, I would definitely say they do not get it. 

Does salvation come through Christ alone or does it come through our acknowledgement of salvation by Christ alone?

I believe that our position is that it is Christ alone. For example, an infant is saved by Christ without acknowledging it.

Brian, you once again twist and distort things to make them unrecognizable.  I did not say that it is our acknowledgement that saves us because that then becomes a work that is accomplished not by us, but by the Holy Spirit (Eph 2:8-10).  Yet those who do not acknowledge salvation by Christ alone (i.e. the so-called "meeting people where they are at and simply walking with them") or acknowledge salvation through Christ is but ONE way to it, or minimize the significance of it, or...  are failing in their ordination vows and rejecting that which the church has proclaimed for 2000 years.

Your Turn / Naked and Unashamed - the next "new" thing...
« on: February 28, 2017, 08:41:25 PM »

This ought to be a good, lively discussion...

As slippery slopes go, it was inevitable post 2009...

I can already predict those who will whine and howl about how this is being overblown, etc, but This is yet another example of a clear and present danger to religious freedom in America.  Voluntary prayer is now being banned?  What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is unclear?

Your Turn / NALC "Lutheran Week," 'Martyrdom,' and the threat of Islam
« on: August 19, 2015, 11:52:21 AM »
While we did not  have any reporting on the events of the NALC convocation, Theological Symposium, and Mission event, what I have heard the most was the profound nature of what folks like Raymond Ibrahim, Robert Spencer, and Margaret Khamoo had to say regarding Islam.

Several things stand out in what was said last week in Dallas.  One is that NONE of the media in America have presented accurately the situation as it now stands, either regarding ISIS or Islam in general.  The second is that most people who have an opinion on Islam rather have an inaccurate and uninformed opinion (i.e. Islam is NOT a religion of peace, as is often reported).

My hope is that those who attended (and those who have serious interest in the topic) can have good, substantive discussion on the matter.  My fear is that this will be derailed like every other topic on the forum.

Your Turn / Lump of cells vs human being
« on: July 15, 2015, 12:53:59 PM »
I've been following this developing story, and though one side denies it, there seems to be enough evidence in it all to give the accusations credibility.

They cannot sell "body parts" unless they are human bodies, and so therefore Planned Parenthood is indeed engaging in murder for profit.  Come quickly, Lord.
(awaiting the usual snark from a few for posting this as well...)

so Friday, what shows up in our church's mail, amongst the pile of other junk mail, is a package containing the book, whose title is the title of the thread. 

Seeing as how I have multiple books in the pile ahead of it, I was curious to know if anyone else received this, and if so, had they read it?

The Author is Harold F. Roellig, and it is published by "Crucifer Press."  According to the back cover, it is available on Amazon.

The back cover identifies him as a graduate of both Concordia Seminary (St. Louis) and Columbia University (having a PhD in invertebrate paleontology).  Guess I can't fault him there as I didn't go that far, but have two degrees in another geological field:  sedimentary petrology.

So back to my question:  Has anyone read this, or can anyone comment to the book or author?

Your Turn / The Latest "New Sexual Revolution:" "Wild Oats Project"
« on: March 17, 2015, 10:55:44 AM »
Like "50 Shades of Gray" sending folks in all the wrong directions, I fear that this, too, shall trend for the worse:

Your Turn / Bp. V Gene Robinson getting a "divorce?"
« on: May 06, 2014, 12:31:04 AM »
This article popped up tonight.  For your edification and discussion:

or this one - haven't checked yet to see if its the same article:

Your Turn / "Son of God" movie - your thoughts?
« on: March 24, 2014, 01:45:12 PM »
I know that this was probably covered in the thread on the Discovery Channel's  "The Bible" miniseries from last March, but since its currently in theatres, thought I'd share my initial thoughts and seek yours.

"Son of God:" Hollywood versus the Bible.
I must say that I left the theatre last night, thinking that if I were not a Christian, I would be wondering what the point of it all was. Mind you, it was a masterful night at the movies, in small town Gothenburg's "Sun Theatre," complete with Digital projector and sound, and modern decor and seats that rival and even surpass the biggest megaplex cinemas. I would even expect that to convert the Gospel account to the silver screen, there would have to be major editing to play in 2 hours.   Even though the producers played hard and fast with the Biblical and historical facts, got many of them wrong, and randomly strung together some of the various events of the Gospel narrative, there was nothing glaringly wrong with it. However, there also was nothing overwhelmingly right either.
For instance, even though the "Passion of the Christ" from 2004 presents a very "Catholic" view of the atonement and also plays hard and fast with certain facts, (adding in a lot of events that simply were never recorded), the constant interplay between God and Satan was one of its strongest points theologically.
This movie had none of that. The closest thing to a purpose came early on when Jesus responds to Peter, after a whole series of "hollywood-izations" in Jesus's calling of Peter, "we're going to change the world." While this may in fact be true, it was not ever the prophetic reason for the Messiah, and leaves out the history of God's purpose for doing just that: changing the world. WHY did God send his Son? WHAT reasons were there for Jesus to die? Without that, it was just a series of random stories that only loosely followed the Biblical narrative in terms of its accuracy.
Yes, it is expected that to dramatize the Gospel in a mere couple of hours, the "hollywood-izations" can and will happen. Yet the 2003 "Gospel of John" movie did a far better job of presenting the Gospel story with a theological point to it all, as the movie essentially re-told St. John's narrative word-for-word while portraying the events on screen.
Truthfully, I thought the most credible character, even with the "hollywood-ization," was Pilate. He was portrayed as a ruthless Roman who simply did not know what to make of Jesus. However, despite that the sentence of death was carried out under Roman jurisdiction, he is not pertinent to God's divine plan.
I guess my whole take would be that if this movie drives people to seek out Jesus, great. If it gets people to want to learn more about Christ, wonderful. The movie was just ho hum, but the book is fantastic! Read the book!

Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33]