Author Topic: Naked Peter and 153 Fish, Exactly.  (Read 10067 times)

John Mundinger

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • John 8:31-32
    • View Profile
Re: Naked Peter and 153 Fish, Exactly.
« Reply #120 on: April 22, 2013, 06:30:09 AM »
By the grace of God, I'm a Lutheran who still clings to Sola Scriptura, a concept that would not have been confused with Fundamentalism back in 1914, when the ALPB was founded by Lutherans.

Pastor Crandall - am I correct in concluding from your various posts that you consider "Sola Scriptura" and "Inerrant and Infallible Scripture" are equivalent terms?  If so, please explain.  If not, please clarify.
Lifelong Evangelical Lutheran layman

Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbour, does not yet understand them as he ought.  St. Augustine

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44912
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Naked Peter and 153 Fish, Exactly.
« Reply #121 on: April 22, 2013, 09:40:55 AM »
Pastor Crandall writes:
And those who don't are dismissed as Fundamentalist

I comment:
No, Pastor Crandall, we do not "dismiss" you. I asked upstream - no answer yet - what do you call yourself? And why do you resist the "fundamentalist" label if - in terms of belief in the literal truth of scripture - that is what you are?
Some of us might contend that fundamentalism does not mesh with classic Lutheranism; and that the concept is projected backwards upon Luther and other.
But be honest. If you're a fundamentalist, own up to it. Stand for it. Or tell us what you are.

By the grace of God, I'm a Lutheran who still clings to Sola Scriptura, a concept that would not have been confused with Fundamentalism back in 1914, when the ALPB was founded by Lutherans. 

The Holy Spirit converted me working through the Scriptures, not through the opinions, interpretations, and σκύβαλα that is stated so “civilly” here. 
(I put “civilly” in BS quotes, because I don’t believe it’s ever truly civil to preach doctrine that leads the lambs away from Christ, which is what all false doctrine does.)


Lutherans have never clung to Sola Scriptura alone. We need the other solas to keep us from misusing the scriptures. When the Bible does not point to grace alone, faith alone, and Christ alone it is being misused.
"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]

Donald_Kirchner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12446
    • View Profile
Re: Naked Peter and 153 Fish, Exactly.
« Reply #122 on: April 22, 2013, 11:04:26 AM »
Lutherans have never clung to Sola Scriptura alone. We need the other solas to keep us from misusing the scriptures. When the Bible does not point to grace alone, faith alone, and Christ alone it is being misused.

Again, the straw man, set forth to confuse.  No one has suggested that Lutherans cling to sola Scriptura to the exclusion of grace alone, faith alone, and Christ alone. You are simply being intellectually dishonest, Rev. Stoffregen.

The Lutheran formal principle, the source and norm for our doctrine, is sola Scriptura. The Lutheran material principle, the central doctrine of our theology, is justification by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone.

Rev. Crandall states that he "still clings to Sola Scriptura," that it is the source and norm of his doctrine, his formal principle. That is Lutheran.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2013, 11:22:23 AM by Pr. Don Kirchner »
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but it’s not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44912
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Naked Peter and 153 Fish, Exactly.
« Reply #123 on: April 22, 2013, 12:05:46 PM »
Lutherans have never clung to Sola Scriptura alone. We need the other solas to keep us from misusing the scriptures. When the Bible does not point to grace alone, faith alone, and Christ alone it is being misused.

Again, the straw man, set forth to confuse.  No one has suggested that Lutherans cling to sola Scriptura to the exclusion of grace alone, faith alone, and Christ alone. You are simply being intellectually dishonest, Rev. Stoffregen.


I disagree. I think that all the arguing about 6 24-hour days and exactly 153 fish is an emphasis on sola scriptura while ignoring the other solas. How do either of those lead us to God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone?

"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]

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 19820
    • View Profile
Re: Naked Peter and 153 Fish, Exactly.
« Reply #124 on: April 22, 2013, 01:18:12 PM »
Again, I don't think a single person on the planet thinks the whole Bible should be taken literally. Where it speaks in poetry, we take it poetically. Where it speaks in parables, we take it parabolically. Where is speaks in symbols, we take it symbolically. Where it speaks in metaphors, we take it metaphorically.


Does your Bible have things color-coded so that you can tell which is which? Mine doesn't.
No, mine has various little divine emoticons. But seriously, figures of speech are simply a part of language. Knowing that meaning of figures of speech is basically the same things as knowing the definitions of words. The only difference is knowing the definitions of phrases. So if someone says, "That girl is hot," a native speaker of English will be able to tell from the context what is meant-- in a hospital it might refere to a girl with a fever, in a bar it will refer to that that she is attractive. You simply have to know. Translators have to know Greek and Hebrew enough to be able to make those same sorts of distinctions.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44912
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Naked Peter and 153 Fish, Exactly.
« Reply #125 on: April 22, 2013, 02:52:12 PM »
Again, I don't think a single person on the planet thinks the whole Bible should be taken literally. Where it speaks in poetry, we take it poetically. Where it speaks in parables, we take it parabolically. Where is speaks in symbols, we take it symbolically. Where it speaks in metaphors, we take it metaphorically.


Does your Bible have things color-coded so that you can tell which is which? Mine doesn't.
No, mine has various little divine emoticons. But seriously, figures of speech are simply a part of language. Knowing that meaning of figures of speech is basically the same things as knowing the definitions of words. The only difference is knowing the definitions of phrases. So if someone says, "That girl is hot," a native speaker of English will be able to tell from the context what is meant-- in a hospital it might refere to a girl with a fever, in a bar it will refer to that that she is attractive. You simply have to know. Translators have to know Greek and Hebrew enough to be able to make those same sorts of distinctions.


But that isn't enough. How can we tell if a writer is being ironic - that his meaning is actually the opposite of what he writes? How can we tell if Paul is making a statement, "I have the freedom to do anything" (1 Cor 6:12) or if he is quoting a saying of his opponents to disagree with it?


The best Greek scholars are not always sure if a writer meant an objective or subjective genitive.  I'm finding that some newer translations, like the CEB, opt for a different understanding than older translations had.


Theories about translating and genres don't mean much until one actually starts dealing with biblical texts. What genre is Jonah? It is unlike every other "prophetic" book. Jonah's speech is half of a verse out of the four chapters. When I translated the book for my Hebrew class, I concluded that it very much like a children's book/story. Simple vocabulary; exaggerations; humor; some fantasy; etc. You'd probably come to a different conclusion about its genre.
"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]

Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Re: Naked Peter and 153 Fish, Exactly.
« Reply #126 on: April 22, 2013, 05:41:01 PM »
And now my comment defending myself from your erroneous charge, has been removed. What the heck is going on here? It seems, Pastor Kirchner, that you, too, read those comments that Pastor Crandall made elsewhere. So you know the texts that provoked my comments. And you read Richard's remark.
I'll let it go. But something is really weird here.


Richard Johnson

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10681
  • Create in me a clean heart, O God.
    • View Profile
Re: Naked Peter and 153 Fish, Exactly.
« Reply #127 on: April 22, 2013, 08:17:08 PM »
Enough already.
The Rev. Richard O. Johnson, STS