Wednesday afternoon: destructive storms

[Timotheos]

Well, since observing the sabbath was strictly a Jewish thing,

All of God's laws in the Old Testament -- the Jewish scriptures -- are Jewish things. In addition, that isn't the issue. Is it God's law or not? Have we changed it or not?

But you haven't articulated exactly when a vote on changing this sabbath law might have occurred,

I don't know that a vote occurred. I only note that we have changed God's law. The seventh day is no longer a day of rest.

My point is that the apostles and their deputies had a divine mandate to sort out the ordering of the church, and our creedal confession professes membership in their apostolic church.  Their resolutions bind us,

They do!!! Do you consider yourself bound by all four prohibitions adopted by the Jerusalem council in Acts 15?

just as later generations closed the canon and developed the Nicene Creed to settle later controversy. 

Hmmm, that canon included the Apocrypha. Who decided to leave it out? Especially in our recent Lutheran study Bibles from AF & CPH. (Actually, Lutherans do not have a closed canon.)

You said nothing about tattoos. Was that God's law. Have we changed it?

That section on "cutting oneself for the dead or making marks" has to do specifically with pagan burial practices.  I'd say that's not a major problem any more (unless someone wants to start an argument about cremation).

Pr. Timothy Winterstein

[swbohler]

Rev. Stoffregen,

Colossians 2:16-17:  "So let no one judge you in food or drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ."

Galatians 4:9-11:  "But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage?  You observe days and months and seasons and years.  I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain."

Romans 14:5-6:  "One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike.  Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.  He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it.  He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and he gives thanks to the Lord."

Is Paul not an apostle?

[swbohler]

Rev. Stoffregen,

1 Corinthians 7:17-19:  "But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches.  Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters."

Romans 2:25-29:  "For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.  Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?  And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law?  For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God."

Galatians 5:6:  "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love."

Galatians 6:15:  "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation."

Colossians 3:11:  "...there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all."


Sounds to me like Paul is telling folks not to see circumcision as a law from God anymore.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Rev. Stoffregen,

Colossians 2:16-17:  "So let no one judge you in food or drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ."

Galatians 4:9-11:  "But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage?  You observe days and months and seasons and years.  I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain."

Romans 14:5-6:  "One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike.  Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.  He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it.  He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and he gives thanks to the Lord."

Is Paul not an apostle?

He was not one of the Twelve. These verses show that Christians felt free to change some of God's laws -- and that there were disagreements about this among early believers. The passage from Romans 14 sounds like respecting the bound conscience of the other. We could very easily change esteeming a day or not and eating or not with supporting committed homosexual relationships or not.

[Brian Stoffregen]

That section on "cutting oneself for the dead or making marks" has to do specifically with pagan burial practices.  I'd say that's not a major problem any more (unless someone wants to start an argument about cremation).

The Hebrew uses a word translated "tattoo" in relationship to the marks. Are you suggesting that this text only forbids tattoos when they are related to pagan burial practices -- otherwise they are permitted? Do you think that's how the ancient Hebrews understood the text -- of even Christians in years past?

[Brian Stoffregen]

Rev. Stoffregen,

1 Corinthians 7:17-19:  "But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches.  Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters."

Romans 2:25-29:  "For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.  Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?  And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law?  For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God."

Galatians 5:6:  "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love."

Galatians 6:15:  "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation."

Colossians 3:11:  "...there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all."


Sounds to me like Paul is telling folks not to see circumcision as a law from God anymore.

Exactly my point -- Christians have been willing to nullify key and essential rules that had come from God for God's people.

[Steverem]

The passage from Romans 14 sounds like respecting the bound conscience of the other. We could very easily change esteeming a day or not and eating or not with supporting committed homosexual relationships or not.

That might be the single most inane thing I've ever heard you argue, Brian--and that is saying a lot.  We could just as easily change "esteeming a day or not" with "having sexual relations with farm animals" or any number of other perversions--but that wouldn't make any sense, because that's not what Paul is talking about.  And, as is made clear in the start of that same letter to the Romans, Paul would never have made such an assertion, and would've found your argument ridiculous (not to mention offensive).

This is why many here argue you don't take the Bible seriously--you are taking a clear statement, and adding to it an agenda that was never intended.  It is a bastardization of Scripture, and it is offensive.

[swbohler]

You are correct, Rev. Stoffregen, in saying that Paul was not one of the Twelve.  But he was an apostle, wasn't he?  And Paul writes that circumcision, sabbaths, kosher foods, etc are not binding.  But he also says that there are "commandments of God" that ARE binding.  And he includes sexual relations between any except husband and wife among those actions which violate those comandments.

[Brian Stoffregen]

The passage from Romans 14 sounds like respecting the bound conscience of the other. We could very easily change esteeming a day or not and eating or not with supporting committed homosexual relationships or not.

That might be the single most inane thing I've ever heard you argue, Brian--and that is saying a lot.  We could just as easily change "esteeming a day or not" with "having sexual relations with farm animals" or any number of other perversions--but that wouldn't make any sense, because that's not what Paul is talking about.  And, as is made clear in the start of that same letter to the Romans, Paul would never have made such an assertion, and would've found your argument ridiculous (not to mention offensive).

This is why many here argue you don't take the Bible seriously--you are taking a clear statement, and adding to it an agenda that was never intended.  It is a bastardization of Scripture, and it is offensive.

Relations with farm animals is not what the ELCA is talking about either with its reference to "bound conscience" -- yet some keep bringing that in. Forgetting about that added agenda, do you agree or not with my statement that Christians felt free to change some of God's laws?

[Steverem]

The passage from Romans 14 sounds like respecting the bound conscience of the other. We could very easily change esteeming a day or not and eating or not with supporting committed homosexual relationships or not.

That might be the single most inane thing I've ever heard you argue, Brian--and that is saying a lot.  We could just as easily change "esteeming a day or not" with "having sexual relations with farm animals" or any number of other perversions--but that wouldn't make any sense, because that's not what Paul is talking about.  And, as is made clear in the start of that same letter to the Romans, Paul would never have made such an assertion, and would've found your argument ridiculous (not to mention offensive).

This is why many here argue you don't take the Bible seriously--you are taking a clear statement, and adding to it an agenda that was never intended.  It is a bastardization of Scripture, and it is offensive.

Relations with farm animals is not what the ELCA is talking about either with its reference to "bound conscience" -- yet some keep bringing that in. Forgetting about that added agenda, do you agree or not with my statement that Christians felt free to change some of God's laws?

Not my point.  Taking Paul's comment about "esteeming a day or not" and saying that you could easily change that to "supporting committed relationships" is inherently stupid.  You could change it to just about anything, but that's not what Paul was talking about.  You are taking a very specific reference, and extending it to practices clearly not intended by the very author you are quoting.  In fact, he explicitly speaks against such practices in the very letter you are citing.  Not only is it a bad exegetical argument, it's a bad legal one, and would be laughed out of court.

[Brian Stoffregen]

You are correct, Rev. Stoffregen, in saying that Paul was not one of the Twelve.  But he was an apostle, wasn't he?  And Paul writes that circumcision, sabbaths, kosher foods, etc are not binding.  But he also says that there are "commandments of God" that ARE binding.  And he includes sexual relations between any except husband and wife among those actions which violate those commandments.

Yes, Paul was an apostle -- and, in that sense, so are we. We have been "sent with a message".

Do you have scripture references where Paul gives the commandments that are binding? One that comes to mind is Romans 13:8-10 where he sums up all the commandments with: "Love your neighbor as yourself." I'm guessing that you have other verses in mind.

[Brian Stoffregen]

The passage from Romans 14 sounds like respecting the bound conscience of the other. We could very easily change esteeming a day or not and eating or not with supporting committed homosexual relationships or not.

That might be the single most inane thing I've ever heard you argue, Brian--and that is saying a lot.  We could just as easily change "esteeming a day or not" with "having sexual relations with farm animals" or any number of other perversions--but that wouldn't make any sense, because that's not what Paul is talking about.  And, as is made clear in the start of that same letter to the Romans, Paul would never have made such an assertion, and would've found your argument ridiculous (not to mention offensive).

This is why many here argue you don't take the Bible seriously--you are taking a clear statement, and adding to it an agenda that was never intended.  It is a bastardization of Scripture, and it is offensive.

Relations with farm animals is not what the ELCA is talking about either with its reference to "bound conscience" -- yet some keep bringing that in. Forgetting about that added agenda, do you agree or not with my statement that Christians felt free to change some of God's laws?

Not my point.  Taking Paul's comment about "esteeming a day or not" and saying that you could easily change that to "supporting committed relationships" is inherently stupid.  You could change it to just about anything, but that's not what Paul was talking about.  You are taking a very specific reference, and extending it to practices clearly not intended by the very author you are quoting.  In fact, he explicitly speaks against such practices in the very letter you are citing.  Not only is it a bad exegetical argument, it's a bad legal one, and would be laughed out of court.

Didn't you read that I said to forget about that added issue. When Paul talks about days and eating, is he changing some of God's laws?

[Steverem]

The passage from Romans 14 sounds like respecting the bound conscience of the other. We could very easily change esteeming a day or not and eating or not with supporting committed homosexual relationships or not.

That might be the single most inane thing I've ever heard you argue, Brian--and that is saying a lot.  We could just as easily change "esteeming a day or not" with "having sexual relations with farm animals" or any number of other perversions--but that wouldn't make any sense, because that's not what Paul is talking about.  And, as is made clear in the start of that same letter to the Romans, Paul would never have made such an assertion, and would've found your argument ridiculous (not to mention offensive).

This is why many here argue you don't take the Bible seriously--you are taking a clear statement, and adding to it an agenda that was never intended.  It is a bastardization of Scripture, and it is offensive.

Relations with farm animals is not what the ELCA is talking about either with its reference to "bound conscience" -- yet some keep bringing that in. Forgetting about that added agenda, do you agree or not with my statement that Christians felt free to change some of God's laws?

Not my point.  Taking Paul's comment about "esteeming a day or not" and saying that you could easily change that to "supporting committed relationships" is inherently stupid.  You could change it to just about anything, but that's not what Paul was talking about.  You are taking a very specific reference, and extending it to practices clearly not intended by the very author you are quoting.  In fact, he explicitly speaks against such practices in the very letter you are citing.  Not only is it a bad exegetical argument, it's a bad legal one, and would be laughed out of court.

Didn't you read that I said to forget about that added issue. When Paul talks about days and eating, is he changing some of God's laws?

Paul was given a directive from God in a vision on such matters.  Do you want to describe to us your "rooftop experience" where God explicitly told you he wanted you to change the 2,000 year-old teaching of the Church catholic and to "re-imagine" the words of Paul and countless others?

[Richard Johnson]

We could very easily change esteeming a day or not and eating or not with supporting committed homosexual relationships or not.

You not only could, you did. It's not a particularly convincing argument.

[peter_speckhard]

Furthermore, the church has not changed God's law but understood the fulfillment of the law in Christ. Thus, we do indeed keep the Sabbath but we do so in a fulfilled way whenever we receive Christ in Word and Sacrament. The explanation of the third commandment makes this clear.