Author Topic: The Binding Nature of Synodical Resolutions  (Read 16250 times)

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44460
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: The Binding Nature of Synodical Resolutions
« Reply #270 on: February 02, 2016, 07:00:34 PM »
Did it ever occur to anyone that if God gave humankind brains and the intellectual capacity to use those brains, and humankind uses that God-given intelligence to piece together the God-provided clues about the past to determine a clearer picture of the details of His creation, that God meant for us to (1) use the brains He gave us and (2) draw conclusions from the evidence He provided?

Or do human scientific discoveries take God by surprise? Or is it Satan who gave mankind the ability to think and reason, not God?

I agree with these thoughts.  First article - God has given me ....."my reason and all my senses and still preserves them."  A lot of the theologians of Luther's time, for instance, were unshakeable in their belief that the sun went around the earth, based on biblical texts.  Reasonable folks have come to a different conclusion.  Or....did those guys walk on the moon or was that just some tucked-away location in Arizona?


That outfit would have been way too warm to wear in our part of Arizona. :)
"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]

Fletch

  • Guest
Re: The Binding Nature of Synodical Resolutions
« Reply #271 on: February 02, 2016, 07:05:49 PM »
Lord have mercy!

... F

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44460
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: The Binding Nature of Synodical Resolutions
« Reply #272 on: February 02, 2016, 07:07:08 PM »
Lord have mercy!


I have no doubts that the Lord is merciful and shows mercy to all of us. Your prayer will be answered.
"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]

Harry Edmon

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
    • View Profile
Re: The Binding Nature of Synodical Resolutions
« Reply #273 on: February 02, 2016, 10:56:53 PM »

I have yet to have anyone show me where my interpretations are chock full of errors. I go where the evidence leads. Sometimes it can lead down more than one interpretive path.

That's interesting, I see your errors pointed out constantly on this list.   But you refuse to see.   So I will go back to what I usually do on this list: just watch and shake my head at the people who explain away clear Scriptures with strange interpretations of their own.
Harry Edmon, Ph.D., LCMS Layman

Steven Tibbetts

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10213
  • Big tents are for circuses.
    • View Profile
Re: The Binding Nature of Synodical Resolutions
« Reply #274 on: February 02, 2016, 11:02:35 PM »

I have yet to have anyone show me where my interpretations are chock full of errors. I go where the evidence leads.

Actually, many people have shown you on several different fora where your interpretations are erroneous.  I've done it a few times myself on this forum and elsewhere.  Sometimes you argue against them.  Other times you change the subject, or even suddenly stop posting on it -- for a short while.  Once you and I, arguing a definition, were using the exact same source, which I was able to show you (and others) precisely how you were misquoting it in order to deny precisely what the source said.  For anyone else, that would count as fudging the evidence, not following it where it leads.

It's not that no one shows you.  It's that you don't want to see, and therefore you do not.

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

Norman Teigen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1682
  • I intend to persuade no one.
    • View Profile
Re: The Binding Nature of Synodical Resolutions
« Reply #275 on: February 03, 2016, 11:32:41 AM »
This is what President Harrison has recently written:

http://blogs.lcms.org/2016/how-shall-we-regard-the-bible
Norman Teigen

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44460
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: The Binding Nature of Synodical Resolutions
« Reply #276 on: February 03, 2016, 01:13:48 PM »

I have yet to have anyone show me where my interpretations are chock full of errors. I go where the evidence leads.

Actually, many people have shown you on several different fora where your interpretations are erroneous.  I've done it a few times myself on this forum and elsewhere.  Sometimes you argue against them.  Other times you change the subject, or even suddenly stop posting on it -- for a short while.  Once you and I, arguing a definition, were using the exact same source, which I was able to show you (and others) precisely how you were misquoting it in order to deny precisely what the source said.  For anyone else, that would count as fudging the evidence, not following it where it leads.

It's not that no one shows you.  It's that you don't want to see, and therefore you do not.


Perhaps, but the way I remember it, you showed me other definitions of a word that I was using that would change the interpretation. I was wrong about limiting the definition to the one I was using, but the fact that there were other uses of the word didn't mean I was wrong.


Ironically, I often do the same thing, e.g., the different meanings of αὐθεντέω can change the understanding of 1 Timothy 2:12. Or even using "wife" and "husband" rather than "woman" and "man" in that context. Looking at alternatives is not the same thing as being wrong - and certainly doesn't classify as "chock full of errors."


If I argued that αὐθεντέω means "to build," that would be wrong; but to suggest that it carries the sense of "self-appointed, dominating power over another" rather than the weaker, "authority," I don't believe it's wrong, but it's different than what some other interpreters see in the word.


When newer translations include footnotes with an "or," e.g., "faith in Christ" or "faithfulness of Christ" does one have to be right and the other wrong? They are two different ways of interpreting and translating the Greek phrase. We can only guess at which one Paul intended when he wrote.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2016, 01:15:22 PM by Brian Stoffregen »
"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]

MaddogLutheran

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3582
  • It's my fantasy football avatar...
    • View Profile
Re: The Binding Nature of Synodical Resolutions
« Reply #277 on: February 03, 2016, 01:38:33 PM »

I have yet to have anyone show me where my interpretations are chock full of errors. I go where the evidence leads.

Actually, many people have shown you on several different fora where your interpretations are erroneous.  I've done it a few times myself on this forum and elsewhere.  Sometimes you argue against them.  Other times you change the subject, or even suddenly stop posting on it -- for a short while.  Once you and I, arguing a definition, were using the exact same source, which I was able to show you (and others) precisely how you were misquoting it in order to deny precisely what the source said.  For anyone else, that would count as fudging the evidence, not following it where it leads.

It's not that no one shows you.  It's that you don't want to see, and therefore you do not.

Fraternally, Steven+
Well said.  And Pr. Stoffregen's subsequent reply to this only reinforces your point.

Sterling Spatz
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

readselerttoo

  • Guest
Re: The Binding Nature of Synodical Resolutions
« Reply #278 on: February 03, 2016, 04:16:37 PM »

I have yet to have anyone show me where my interpretations are chock full of errors. I go where the evidence leads.

Actually, many people have shown you on several different fora where your interpretations are erroneous.  I've done it a few times myself on this forum and elsewhere.  Sometimes you argue against them.  Other times you change the subject, or even suddenly stop posting on it -- for a short while.  Once you and I, arguing a definition, were using the exact same source, which I was able to show you (and others) precisely how you were misquoting it in order to deny precisely what the source said.  For anyone else, that would count as fudging the evidence, not following it where it leads.

It's not that no one shows you.  It's that you don't want to see, and therefore you do not.

Fraternally, Steven+
Well said.  And Pr. Stoffregen's subsequent reply to this only reinforces your point.

Sterling Spatz


IMO and in fairness to Pr. Stoffregen, I do agree with some places in the New Testament where he explains the Greek text.   Although I think for the most part I do not agree with his interpretation of Genesis, 1, 2 and 3 in the Hebrew Scriptures esp. in the Septuagint reading (Neither am I a Hebrew scholar).  I also remember a place where we disagreed on how a Greek word was rendered grammatically.  I think it had to do with the verb "to see" the risen Christ in I Corinthians 15.  This grammatical disagreement could lead to a misinterpretation of how the appearance of Jesus happened with the disciples and others after his resurrection.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2016, 04:18:24 PM by readselerttoo »

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44460
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: The Binding Nature of Synodical Resolutions
« Reply #279 on: February 03, 2016, 05:43:14 PM »

I have yet to have anyone show me where my interpretations are chock full of errors. I go where the evidence leads.

Actually, many people have shown you on several different fora where your interpretations are erroneous.  I've done it a few times myself on this forum and elsewhere.  Sometimes you argue against them.  Other times you change the subject, or even suddenly stop posting on it -- for a short while.  Once you and I, arguing a definition, were using the exact same source, which I was able to show you (and others) precisely how you were misquoting it in order to deny precisely what the source said.  For anyone else, that would count as fudging the evidence, not following it where it leads.

It's not that no one shows you.  It's that you don't want to see, and therefore you do not.

Fraternally, Steven+
Well said.  And Pr. Stoffregen's subsequent reply to this only reinforces your point.

Sterling Spatz


IMO and in fairness to Pr. Stoffregen, I do agree with some places in the New Testament where he explains the Greek text.   Although I think for the most part I do not agree with his interpretation of Genesis, 1, 2 and 3 in the Hebrew Scriptures esp. in the Septuagint reading (Neither am I a Hebrew scholar).  I also remember a place where we disagreed on how a Greek word was rendered grammatically.  I think it had to do with the verb "to see" the risen Christ in I Corinthians 15.  This grammatical disagreement could lead to a misinterpretation of how the appearance of Jesus happened with the disciples and others after his resurrection.


However, disagreeing with an interpretation or translation doesn't necessarily mean that it is wrong or "chock full of errors." It means that we disagree. Usually, I'm willing to admit that the traditional way of interpreting is a possibility, but that it's not the only way the original words can be interpreted. I certainly try, when possible, to show how others present the same possibility that I am presenting, e.g., a definition from BDAG that fits what I'm saying, a comment from a commentary or annotation in support.
"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]

Richard Johnson

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10619
  • Create in me a clean heart, O God.
    • View Profile
Re: The Binding Nature of Synodical Resolutions
« Reply #280 on: February 03, 2016, 06:25:12 PM »
IMO and in fairness to Pr. Stoffregen, I do agree with some places in the New Testament where he explains the Greek text.   

I agree with every place in the NT. But I often don't agree with how he explains the text.
The Rev. Richard O. Johnson, STS

bookpastor/Erma Wolf

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 380
  • "I'll think about it tomorrow." Scarlett O'Hara
    • View Profile
Re: The Binding Nature of Synodical Resolutions
« Reply #281 on: February 03, 2016, 08:27:59 PM »
When newer translations include footnotes with an "or," e.g., "faith in Christ" or "faithfulness of Christ" does one have to be right and the other wrong? They are two different ways of interpreting and translating the Greek phrase. We can only guess at which one Paul intended when he wrote.

You might want to refer that question to Richard Hays.
Better is a handfull of quiet, than two hands full of toil and a chasing after the wind.  Eccl. 4:6
  "God gave us family so we wouldn't have to fight with strangers." CNN pundit.

Steven Tibbetts

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10213
  • Big tents are for circuses.
    • View Profile
Re: The Binding Nature of Synodical Resolutions
« Reply #282 on: February 03, 2016, 10:33:08 PM »

Perhaps, but the way I remember it, you showed me other definitions of a word that I was using that would change the interpretation. I was wrong about limiting the definition to the one I was using, but the fact that there were other uses of the word didn't mean I was wrong.


You cited a particular Greek-English dictionary edition's definition to show that an English definition of the word ἄνθρωπος I was using is wrong.  Owning that edition of that dictionary, I quoted the definition you cited in full -- in which the word I used, the very word you insist must be denied, is the very first word of that dictionary's definition. 

Years later, you and I continue to disagree on the translation of that word.  But you no longer cite that dictionary, even though being the one in the back of the UBS Greek New Testament, it may be the most commonly used one in the English speaking/reading world.

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

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44460
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: The Binding Nature of Synodical Resolutions
« Reply #283 on: February 04, 2016, 12:19:47 AM »

Perhaps, but the way I remember it, you showed me other definitions of a word that I was using that would change the interpretation. I was wrong about limiting the definition to the one I was using, but the fact that there were other uses of the word didn't mean I was wrong.


You cited a particular Greek-English dictionary edition's definition to show that an English definition of the word ἄνθρωπος I was using is wrong.  Owning that edition of that dictionary, I quoted the definition you cited in full -- in which the word I used, the very word you insist must be denied, is the very first word of that dictionary's definition. 

Years later, you and I continue to disagree on the translation of that word.  But you no longer cite that dictionary, even though being the one in the back of the UBS Greek New Testament, it may be the most commonly used one in the English speaking/reading world.


True. Newman's Lexicon in the UBS gives "man" as the first listing of ways to translate ἄνθρωπος. "Human being" is the second translation listed. However, these are not "definitions" of the word, but glosses.

The first definition given by Lowe & Nida is: "a human being (normally an adult)." We disagree about whether the English word "man" continues to be an appropriate gloss for this definition. That, as I recall, was the crux of our discussion.

The second definition by them is: "an adult male person of marriageable age." "Man" is an appropriate gloss for this definition.
These are also the first two definitions they give of ἀνήρ, but in reverse order.


The third definition for both words is: "a man who is married to a woman." The usual gloss for this definition is "husband."   

BDAG (third edition) has eight definitions for ἄνθρωπος. Only one, the third definition limits it to "a male person," which is the only place where "man" is listed as a gloss. The other seven can be a person of either sex. (It doesn't list "a man who is married to a woman" as a definition.)


I suggest that the number of places where translating ἄνθρωπος as "a human being" is wrong is very limited.



   
"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]

mariemeyer

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4320
    • View Profile
Re: The Binding Nature of Synodical Resolutions
« Reply #284 on: February 26, 2016, 12:30:50 PM »

"Implications of the Advisory Nature of Synod" by The Rev Dr. Norman Metzler, Emeritus Professor of Theology, Concordia University, Portland, 
the fourth in a series of Daystar Journal articles on LCMS synodical resolutions is now available (thedaystarjournal.com).

Marie Meyer