Author Topic: Creationism  (Read 19593 times)

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 45283
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Creationism
« Reply #90 on: July 29, 2013, 12:10:39 PM »
Enthusiasm, whether individual/personal or corporate, is still enthusiasm. It matters not if the "spirit" is moving the one body (individual or corporate) in a direction that is against where that body has been before, especially if the "spirit" is moving the body in ways that are against the plain and simple reading of Scripture (e.g., cultural/sociological/psychological understandings as facilitated via "discussions", etc...).

If enthusiasm is enthusiasm, isn't it also correct that it can take many forms.  E.g. wouldn't insistence on literal interpretations of passages that originally were inspired as metaphor be "enthusiasm"?

"Enthusiasm" as traditionally defined and understood by the Church? No.

Being "enthusiastic" in one's defense/apologia of the historic pattern of doctrinal/teaching & understanding? Quite possible and acceptable.

Trying to conflate the two? Sophistry & an attempt to win an argument through less than logical and/or accurate means...


How is believing that the Spirit led the Church Fathers and the Reformers and their discussions and decision-making to write the traditions we now accept different from believing that the Spirit is working through our church leaders and processes today? Why do we act as though God is dead, rather than being a living and active presence in our lives - both individually and corporately? It is possible to "grieve the Spirit".
"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]

ghp

  • Guest
Re: Creationism
« Reply #91 on: July 29, 2013, 12:16:51 PM »
Enthusiasm, whether individual/personal or corporate, is still enthusiasm. It matters not if the "spirit" is moving the one body (individual or corporate) in a direction that is against where that body has been before, especially if the "spirit" is moving the body in ways that are against the plain and simple reading of Scripture (e.g., cultural/sociological/psychological understandings as facilitated via "discussions", etc...).

If enthusiasm is enthusiasm, isn't it also correct that it can take many forms.  E.g. wouldn't insistence on literal interpretations of passages that originally were inspired as metaphor be "enthusiasm"?

"Enthusiasm" as traditionally defined and understood by the Church? No.

Being "enthusiastic" in one's defense/apologia of the historic pattern of doctrinal/teaching & understanding? Quite possible and acceptable.

Trying to conflate the two? Sophistry & an attempt to win an argument through less than logical and/or accurate means...


How is believing that the Spirit led the Church Fathers and the Reformers and their discussions and decision-making to write the traditions we now accept different from believing that the Spirit is working through our church leaders and processes today? Why do we act as though God is dead, rather than being a living and active presence in our lives - both individually and corporately? It is possible to "grieve the Spirit".

They did not act in ways that are contrary to simple readings of Holy Scripture.

Y'all did/are.

Yes, it is possible to "grieve the Spirit". It's good to see you acknowledge that. It'd be better to see it in action...


Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 45283
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Creationism
« Reply #92 on: July 29, 2013, 12:22:27 PM »
Enthusiasm, whether individual/personal or corporate, is still enthusiasm. It matters not if the "spirit" is moving the one body (individual or corporate) in a direction that is against where that body has been before, especially if the "spirit" is moving the body in ways that are against the plain and simple reading of Scripture (e.g., cultural/sociological/psychological understandings as facilitated via "discussions", etc...).

If enthusiasm is enthusiasm, isn't it also correct that it can take many forms.  E.g. wouldn't insistence on literal interpretations of passages that originally were inspired as metaphor be "enthusiasm"?

"Enthusiasm" as traditionally defined and understood by the Church? No.

Being "enthusiastic" in one's defense/apologia of the historic pattern of doctrinal/teaching & understanding? Quite possible and acceptable.

Trying to conflate the two? Sophistry & an attempt to win an argument through less than logical and/or accurate means...


How is believing that the Spirit led the Church Fathers and the Reformers and their discussions and decision-making to write the traditions we now accept different from believing that the Spirit is working through our church leaders and processes today? Why do we act as though God is dead, rather than being a living and active presence in our lives - both individually and corporately? It is possible to "grieve the Spirit".

They did not act in ways that are contrary to simple readings of Holy Scripture.

Y'all did/are.

Yes, it is possible to "grieve the Spirit". It's good to see you acknowledge that. It'd be better to see it in action...


Some scriptures require more than a simple reading.
"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]

John Mundinger

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • John 8:31-32
    • View Profile
Re: Creationism
« Reply #93 on: July 29, 2013, 12:25:51 PM »
Enthusiasm, whether individual/personal or corporate, is still enthusiasm. It matters not if the "spirit" is moving the one body (individual or corporate) in a direction that is against where that body has been before, especially if the "spirit" is moving the body in ways that are against the plain and simple reading of Scripture (e.g., cultural/sociological/psychological understandings as facilitated via "discussions", etc...).

If enthusiasm is enthusiasm, isn't it also correct that it can take many forms.  E.g. wouldn't insistence on literal interpretations of passages that originally were inspired as metaphor be "enthusiasm"?

"Enthusiasm" as traditionally defined and understood by the Church? No.

Being "enthusiastic" in one's defense/apologia of the historic pattern of doctrinal/teaching & understanding? Quite possible and acceptable.

Trying to conflate the two? Sophistry & an attempt to win an argument through less than logical and/or accurate means...

If it really is a matter of sophistry, I would suggest that it is the attempt to dismiss, as enthusiasts, those with whom you disagree rather than engaging in dialogue in matters for which there is good reason for honest disagreement.

They did not act in ways that are contrary to simple readings of Holy Scripture.

I'd suggest that efforts to reconcile two different passages which, on simple reading, are in apparent contradiction might be another example of "enthusiasm".
« Last Edit: July 29, 2013, 12:31:36 PM by John Mundinger »
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

cnehring

  • Guest
Re: Creationism
« Reply #94 on: July 29, 2013, 12:46:42 PM »
Enthusiasm, whether individual/personal or corporate, is still enthusiasm. It matters not if the "spirit" is moving the one body (individual or corporate) in a direction that is against where that body has been before, especially if the "spirit" is moving the body in ways that are against the plain and simple reading of Scripture (e.g., cultural/sociological/psychological understandings as facilitated via "discussions", etc...).

If enthusiasm is enthusiasm, isn't it also correct that it can take many forms.  E.g. wouldn't insistence on literal interpretations of passages that originally were inspired as metaphor be "enthusiasm"?

"Enthusiasm" as traditionally defined and understood by the Church? No.

Being "enthusiastic" in one's defense/apologia of the historic pattern of doctrinal/teaching & understanding? Quite possible and acceptable.

Trying to conflate the two? Sophistry & an attempt to win an argument through less than logical and/or accurate means...

If it really is a matter of sophistry, I would suggest that it is the attempt to dismiss, as enthusiasts, those with whom you disagree rather than engaging in dialogue in matters for which there is good reason for honest disagreement.

They did not act in ways that are contrary to simple readings of Holy Scripture.

I'd suggest that efforts to reconcile two different passages which, on simple reading, are in apparent contradiction might be another example of "enthusiasm".

On the first thing: there has been no real dialogue in many of these matters b/c one side declares it is "spirit-led" and thus ends all conversation/

On the second: You have a misunderstanding. We do not interpret Scripture, it interprets itself. So, when one part is diffcult or confusing, you use the rest of Scripture to interpret that for you, clearing it up, since the Scripture does not contradict itself, otherwise the Bible could not be trusted for anything.

Enthusaism is the essence of believing that one has the power/right/insight/inspiration/brilliance/godliness to decide what is true or false all b/c one believes they have been "inspired" by a "spirit" that only they have discovered

ghp

  • Guest
Re: Creationism
« Reply #95 on: July 29, 2013, 01:37:45 PM »
Enthusiasm, whether individual/personal or corporate, is still enthusiasm. It matters not if the "spirit" is moving the one body (individual or corporate) in a direction that is against where that body has been before, especially if the "spirit" is moving the body in ways that are against the plain and simple reading of Scripture (e.g., cultural/sociological/psychological understandings as facilitated via "discussions", etc...).

If enthusiasm is enthusiasm, isn't it also correct that it can take many forms.  E.g. wouldn't insistence on literal interpretations of passages that originally were inspired as metaphor be "enthusiasm"?

"Enthusiasm" as traditionally defined and understood by the Church? No.

Being "enthusiastic" in one's defense/apologia of the historic pattern of doctrinal/teaching & understanding? Quite possible and acceptable.

Trying to conflate the two? Sophistry & an attempt to win an argument through less than logical and/or accurate means...

If it really is a matter of sophistry, I would suggest that it is the attempt to dismiss, as enthusiasts, those with whom you disagree rather than engaging in dialogue in matters for which there is good reason for honest disagreement.

They did not act in ways that are contrary to simple readings of Holy Scripture.

I'd suggest that efforts to reconcile two different passages which, on simple reading, are in apparent contradiction might be another example of "enthusiasm".

On the first thing: there has been no real dialogue in many of these matters b/c one side declares it is "spirit-led" and thus ends all conversation/

On the second: You have a misunderstanding. We do not interpret Scripture, it interprets itself. So, when one part is diffcult or confusing, you use the rest of Scripture to interpret that for you, clearing it up, since the Scripture does not contradict itself, otherwise the Bible could not be trusted for anything.

Enthusaism is the essence of believing that one has the power/right/insight/inspiration/brilliance/godliness to decide what is true or false all b/c one believes they have been "inspired" by a "spirit" that only they have discovered

What Pr. Nehring said! (better than I did/could've)


Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Re: Creationism
« Reply #96 on: July 29, 2013, 02:11:35 PM »
Don't you understand, Mr. Mundinger? Our purpose here is to be the "foil" of all the others, to let them say "Thank God, I don't believe that! Hooray for me." And to hold on our heads the apple of heresy for the self-proclamed archers of orthodoxy to aim at; except that unlike the Swiss hero, they don't care if they miss the apple and hit the "heretic." Some even aim to do that.

BTW, I am so tired of hearing the absolutely inane, meaningless, insipid and dumb-bunny slogan: "Scripture interprets itself." I don't care who said it first, or what explanation they gave to it; it is thrown around like a pickled rat as if it were The Answer. Codswallop. It isn't.

John Mundinger

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • John 8:31-32
    • View Profile
Re: Creationism
« Reply #97 on: July 29, 2013, 02:15:17 PM »
On the first thing: there has been no real dialogue in many of these matters b/c one side declares it is "spirit-led" and thus ends all conversation/

To the extent that might be true, it would be equally correct to say that there has been no real dialogue in many of these matters because the other side, "led by the Spirit" claims them to be closed questions.

On the second: You have a misunderstanding. We do not interpret Scripture, it interprets itself. So, when one part is diffcult or confusing, you use the rest of Scripture to interpret that for you, clearing it up, since the Scripture does not contradict itself, otherwise the Bible could not be trusted for anything.

Agreed.  But, for Lutherans, the key to applying Scripture to interpret Scripture is the doctrine of justification.  Applying Scripture to interpret Scripture, we can, with confidence, confess that I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.  And, by the same approach, we can say that Scripture has much to say about God, the Creator.  We can say, with confidence, that Christ is present before and participated in creation.  However, we would be on shaky ground to suggest that all of Scripture testifies to the scientific accuracy of creation as a 6-day event.

Enthusaism is the essence of believing that one has the power/right/insight/inspiration/brilliance/godliness to decide what is true or false all b/c one believes they have been "inspired" by a "spirit" that only they have discovered

I understand.  I would suggest that insisting that denial of a literal 6-day creation is a denial of the First Article, denial of original sin, etc.; or that to deny the historicity of Jonah is equivalent to denial of the resurrection; or to question the correct translation of one Hebrew word written more than 2500 years ago, the earliest translation to which we have access is more than 500-years post-signature is equivalent to denial of the virgin birth of Christ are all examples that fit that definition of "enthusiasm".
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: 45283
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Creationism
« Reply #98 on: July 29, 2013, 02:17:56 PM »
Enthusaism is the essence of believing that one has the power/right/insight/inspiration/brilliance/godliness to decide what is true or false all b/c one believes they have been "inspired" by a "spirit" that only they have discovered


Nope. Inspiration doesn't come from a spirit we discover; but from the Spirit God gives primarily through his means of grace. God is within because we have eaten and drunk God.
"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: 20042
    • View Profile
Re: Creationism
« Reply #99 on: August 03, 2013, 10:11:31 PM »
The Whereases are not part of what is adopted. That is why it is not necessary to read them aloud before the vote, but it is required to read the resolveds aloud before the motion to adopt. The convention only votes on what is resolved. Their reasons are their own as to why they vote the way they do.

Jim Butler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 2102
    • View Profile
Re: Creationism
« Reply #100 on: August 04, 2013, 12:27:03 PM »
The Whereases are not part of what is adopted. That is why it is not necessary to read them aloud before the vote, but it is required to read the resolveds aloud before the motion to adopt. The convention only votes on what is resolved. Their reasons are their own as to why they vote the way they do.

Nope. The entire resolution is voted upon, but usually only the Resolveds are read aloud. The Whereases are considered to be part of the resolution. This is clearly spelled out in the standing rules.
The significance of the passage of time, right? The significance of the passage of time. So when you think about it, there is great significance to the passage of time. -- VP Kamala Harris

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 20042
    • View Profile
Re: Creationism
« Reply #101 on: August 05, 2013, 12:34:00 AM »
The Whereases are not part of what is adopted. That is why it is not necessary to read them aloud before the vote, but it is required to read the resolveds aloud before the motion to adopt. The convention only votes on what is resolved. Their reasons are their own as to why they vote the way they do.

Nope. The entire resolution is voted upon, but usually only the Resolveds are read aloud. The Whereases are considered to be part of the resolution. This is clearly spelled out in the standing rules.
You're right, though standing rules vary on that. I think it merely a matter of logic though. We adopt the whole resolution, but we can really only vote on something that is resolved. That is the only explanation I have ever heard for why the Resolveds must be read before the vote but the Whereases can be omitted. Is there precedent for some statement of debatable fact in a whereas clause being ruled as binding?

I look at it this way. What we resolve is our resolution. You can have a resolution with no whereas clause and still have a vote. "Be it resolved that we break for lunch. All in favor..." But you can't vote on a whereas clause. "Whereas we're all hungry. All in favor..." Therefore, when the chair says, "All in favor, say aye," the ensuing vote refers to what people are in favor of, which is whatever was resolved, in this case to break for lunch, not to acknowledge that everyone is hungry. If I knew for a fact that some of the people secretly weren't hungry but just wanted to take a nap, I would not be conscience bound for the sake of truth to vote nay on the resolution because I thought the whereas clause false. I can think a whereas clause true or false but I cannot be in favor of it or opposed to it, so I can't really vote on it. So yes, technically it is recorded as part of the resolution that was voted on, but logic dictates that only what follows "be it resolved that..." is actually voted upon. I can imagine scenarios in which I would vote against a resolution I favored merely because I wouldn't want a whereas clause I disagreed with to be adopted and recorded, but it would have to be pretty egregious. If they are binding they ought to be in separate votes, because you can't vote on a resolved in the same way you vote on a whereas clause, and you have to vote one way or the other on the resolution. If you favor the resolution but disagree with something in the whereas clauses, you're stuck. You either have to say you think something true that you really think is false or say you oppose something you really favor doing.