Author Topic: Two Hermeneutics  (Read 6556 times)

ptmccain

  • Guest
Re: Two Hermeneutics
« Reply #60 on: November 07, 2007, 07:49:23 PM »
What about someone who said he believed in the Virgin Birth, but "interpreted" that statement to mean that Jesus was the illegitimate offspring of Mary and another man besides Joseph, but since God made a new beginning through Jesus, the meaning of his appearance is such that it offers total discontinuity with previous generations and is therefore best expressed via the concept of a child born of a virgin?

That person is not a Christian.

Quote
Or someone who confesses the resurrection of Jesus, but "interprets" that to mean Jesus stayed dead, but He lives on the experiential remembrance of his disciples?

That person is not a Christian.

This person has suffered a shipwreck of their "faith" and have fallen into damning error. They need to hear the Law so that the Holy Spirit can produce in them knowledge of their sins and move them to repent. Then the good news will refresh them. But without repentance, they are in a state of unbelief and have condemned themselves to eternal punishment in hell.



« Last Edit: November 07, 2007, 09:14:04 PM by ptmccain »

John Dornheim

  • Guest
Re: Two Hermeneutics
« Reply #61 on: November 07, 2007, 08:54:20 PM »
Or, perhaps, some reasoned discussion can occur and the person adjust his or her previously held beliefs.

John Dornheim

ptmccain

  • Guest
Re: Two Hermeneutics
« Reply #62 on: November 07, 2007, 09:15:13 PM »
Why do you assume a reason discussion precludes proclamation of Law and Gospel John?

And, I note you do not label the views Peter put forward as false. Do you agree that they are?

edoughty

  • Guest
Re: Two Hermeneutics
« Reply #63 on: November 07, 2007, 09:28:52 PM »
Why do you assume a reason discussion precludes proclamation of Law and Gospel John?

And, I note you do not label the views Peter put forward as false. Do you agree that they are?

Well, just to share two reasons that approach may be flawed-- if you tell someone, "You have fallen into damning error and, if you do not repent, will spend eternity in hell," then probably there will be no discussion because you've shown you're not *actually* interested in discussion; youve already made a decision.  In addition, what you've said will make them defensive rather than receptive.

Erik Doughty
Minneapolis, MN

ptmccain

  • Guest
Re: Two Hermeneutics
« Reply #64 on: November 07, 2007, 09:31:26 PM »
Erik,

Please read my comment more closely. I was not proposing how to communicate a person's damning error to them, but that it must be communicated is essential.

Why do you assume proper proclamation of Law and Gospel precludes discussion?

And, do you agree that the two points of view that Peter described are false, damning error?

Paul

John Dornheim

  • Guest
Re: Two Hermeneutics
« Reply #65 on: November 07, 2007, 10:02:05 PM »
Why do you assume a reason discussion precludes proclamation of Law and Gospel John?

And, I note you do not label the views Peter put forward as false. Do you agree that they are?

Because of your phraseology.

I would be interested in knowing how one formed those opinions and, in the end, suggest what I believe to be the accurate understanding.
John Dornheim

David Charlton

  • Guest
Re: Two Hermeneutics
« Reply #66 on: November 07, 2007, 10:17:21 PM »
Gee, John and Paul are so far apart, how is a person to know who is right?  Who or what can mediate between your two positions?

Autonomous Reason?
Practical Reason?
Reason Illuminated by Revelation?
Tradition?
Lutheran Confessions?
Scripture?
Magisterium?

Just as the question is not "does God exist" but "which God," so the question here is not whether we acknowledge any authority, but which authority we acknowledge.

David Charlton

pearson

  • Guest
Re: Two Hermeneutics
« Reply #67 on: November 07, 2007, 10:22:32 PM »
Mainly through the creeds -- summaries of the essentials of the Christian faith. I would seriously question the Christianity of someone who denies the Virgin Birth or the resurrection of Jesus. I would not question a man's faith if he had hair down to his shouders or a woman whose hair was only a half inch long -- and who didn't cover her head in public -- even though scriptures is clear about that -- but it was a cultural issue in Corinth. I wouldn't questions the faith of those who don't know what a "Sanctus" is, but I would question it if they felt no need to receive Holy Communion.

Ah, good. You're noting the difference between traditional Christian practice and sundry secular practices. That's helpful, and I think your examples are apt. I had initially misread your intended meaning as marking a distinction between Christianity on the one hand and cultural practices in general on the other hand, as if Christianity itself were not a distinctive cultural practice; but you've cleared that up for me. Thanks.

Tom Pearson

pearson

  • Guest
Re: Two Hermeneutics
« Reply #68 on: November 07, 2007, 10:40:53 PM »
. . . if you tell someone, "You have fallen into damning error and, if you do not repent, will spend eternity in hell," then probably there will be no discussion because you've shown you're not *actually* interested in discussion; you've already made a decision.

Got a question for you, Erik.

How is it possible to have a discussion with people who haven't made a decision?  If someone hasn't come to some conclusions they are willling to defend, I don't see how there can be any discussion at all.  The best discussions I've ever had have been with people who hold emphatic judgments based on substantial evidence and framed by solid reasoning (I'm thinking of a great dinner conversation I once had in downtown St. Paul. . .).  The more robust the informed decisions, the better the discussion, I say.

Of courses, phrases like, "You have fallen into damning error and, if you do not repent, will spend eternity in hell," are not simply strong judgments, but prognostications masquerading as judgments.  But even here, there are themes worth discussing (like, "What counts as an error"? and "If someone with erroneous beliefs still holds to faith in Christ for her justification, is that person damned"?).

Tom Pearson   

Steven Tibbetts

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10213
  • Big tents are for circuses.
    • View Profile
Re: Two Hermeneutics
« Reply #69 on: November 07, 2007, 11:14:35 PM »

Why didn't Lutherans continue that practice and their belief about divorce and remarriage? Did we, somewhere along the line, take a vote to annul annulments?

As far as divorce and remarriage are concerned, Lutherans did continue medieval Catholic teaching. As for annulments, jurisdiction for marriage was moved from the Church to the civil authorities. That was part of the rejection of marriage as a Sacrament.

spt+
The Rev. Steven Paul Tibbetts, STS
Pastor Zip's Blog

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43155
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Two Hermeneutics
« Reply #70 on: November 08, 2007, 12:40:08 AM »
And the church has always called a marriage after a divorce a sin.

I understand it is still a sin... but it is one that can be repented of and a lifestyle change away from divorce and behaviors/actions/etc that lead one down that path can occur afterwards. But willfully continuing in the lifestyle, on the otherhand, is another matter entirely.
So, anyone who is committing adultery by being married after a divorce should not willfully continue in that relationship.
"The church had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

edoughty

  • Guest
Re: Two Hermeneutics
« Reply #71 on: November 08, 2007, 06:59:56 AM »
. . . if you tell someone, "You have fallen into damning error and, if you do not repent, will spend eternity in hell," then probably there will be no discussion because you've shown you're not *actually* interested in discussion; you've already made a decision. 

Got a question for you, Erik.

How is it possible to have a discussion with people who haven't made a decision?  If someone hasn't come to some conclusions they are willling to defend, I don't see how there can be any discussion at all.  The best discussions I've ever had have been with people who hold emphatic judgments based on substantial evidence and framed by solid reasoning (I'm thinking of a great dinner conversation I once had in downtown St. Paul. . .).  The more robust the informed decisions, the better the discussion, I say.

Of courses, phrases like, "You have fallen into damning error and, if you do not repent, will spend eternity in hell," are not simply strong judgments, but prognostications masquerading as judgments.  But even here, there are themes worth discussing (like, "What counts as an error"? and "If someone with erroneous beliefs still holds to faith in Christ for her justification, is that person damned"?).

Tom Pearson   

Those are good points, Tom.  I think you're right that good discussion comes out of conversation between people who have strongly-felt points of view-- or, it *can* come from that context.  I would say, though, that when someone expresses that concern in so many words, the reaction of the other person is probably not going to be the desired one. 

If the discussion began with interested questions (i.e., how did you come to those conclusions; what does that mean for your faith?) then I think things might be different.  "I'm concerned about you," and "You're hellbound!" are two very different conversations.

Erik Doughty
Minneapolis, MN

Gladfelteri

  • Guest
Re: Two Hermeneutics
« Reply #72 on: November 08, 2007, 09:10:13 AM »
What about someone who said he believed in the Virgin Birth, but "interpreted" that statement to mean that Jesus was the illegitimate offspring of Mary and another man besides Joseph, but since God made a new beginning through Jesus, the meaning of his appearance is such that it offers total discontinuity with previous generations and is therefore best expressed via the concept of a child born of a virgin?

That person is not a Christian.

Quote
Or someone who confesses the resurrection of Jesus, but "interprets" that to mean Jesus stayed dead, but He lives on the experiential remembrance of his disciples?

That person is not a Christian.

This person has suffered a shipwreck of their "faith" and have fallen into damning error. They need to hear the Law so that the Holy Spirit can produce in them knowledge of their sins and move them to repent. Then the good news will refresh them. But without repentance, they are in a state of unbelief and have condemned themselves to eternal punishment in hell. 

Thank you, Paul.   :)