Author Topic: Is God Now a "Ze"?  (Read 16556 times)

Donald_Kirchner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12358
    • View Profile
Re: Is God Now a "Ze"?
« Reply #150 on: May 07, 2018, 01:16:19 PM »
The same holds for false doctrine. Doctrine matters.

Doctrine matters, but doctrine does not save. God certainly saves many people whose have faulty doctrine.

"Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers." 1 Tim 4:16

“[An overseer]] must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it" (Titus 1:9)... so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior” (Titus 2:10)"

As one commentator put it, "Doctrine matters so much so that our very faith hinges on it as it is the only way we can be saved (Acts 16:30-31) for without the right gospel you’ve got the wrong Savior."
« Last Edit: May 07, 2018, 01:29:58 PM by Pr. Don Kirchner »
Don Kirchner

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

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13502
    • View Profile
Re: Is God Now a "Ze"?
« Reply #151 on: May 07, 2018, 01:19:05 PM »



And your little wooden horse, Pastor Kirchner, is the obsession about you being right and others being wrong and making sure that their errors are denounced, even if the are not the kind of errors that take them into "heresy".
   Add to that the particularly LCMS "tactic" of mistrust and refusal to accept the statements of those you find suspicious.
   I have seen this for years, going way back to the times when your people (after the election of J.A.O. Preus) took part in inter-Lutheran and ecumenical dialogues.
   We or a dialogue partner would say, "Yes, we believe A.B., and C, and hold firmly to ...."
   Your people would smile and say "yes, but..." or more directly declare "Well, you say you believe A.B., and C, but we don't think you really do."



And, judging by where you (meaning the ELCA) has ended up in many teachings/practices, they were right to mistrust and refuse to accept those statements at face value.


And because we firmly believe that we aren't saved by our teachings/practices, we can accept and worship with and share Christ's body and blood with others. Jesus Christ is our salvation. He comes to us in Word and Sacrament regardless of what people might teach or believe about it.


The denunciation of those who disagree with your teachings is a proclamation of salvation by correct doctrine.



Therefore you, Brian, have proclaimed that salvation is by correct doctrine when you denounce us in the LCMS for disagreeing with your teaching that in 1 Corinthians 11 Paul is referring to discerning that all those assembled are the Body of Christ and are to be invited to the table.

[author=Brian Stoffregen link=topic=6908.msg437332#msg437332 date=1518244268]
I am pretty certain that I have never accused anyone of being a misogynist. I have accused folks of misinterpreting 1 Corinthians 11 - and then doing exactly what Paul is chastising them of doing - withholding the sacrament from members of the Body of Christ. I've also shared the affect that such a withholding had on my wife when she was not allowed to take communion with her parents.

I also think that their logic is faulty. If the bread is the body of Christ because we declare it and God makes it happen, why aren't we united in one body because God makes it happen when we who are many are one body because we share from one loaf? As I understand the LCMS's position (and Orthodox may be different); we are one body only when we have the same confession of faith. Here the meaning of is/are depends on us to make it happen. In the words of institution is depends on God to make it happen.
[author=Brian Stoffregen link=topic=6421.msg403168#msg403168 date=1467737920]
[author=Diego link=topic=6421.msg403161#msg403161 date=1467737308]

Brian, that most certainly begs the question. If they take of the Supper unworthily, which means if they do not believe correct things about it, then we run into problems.
[Brian Stoffregen responds]

I believe that's an incorrect interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11. Their unworthiness came from excluding members of the body of Christ from the supper. Paul's solution is to tell them to wait for one another.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2018, 01:24:43 PM by Dan Fienen »
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

MaddogLutheran

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3621
  • It's my fantasy football avatar...
    • View Profile
Re: Is God Now a "Ze"?
« Reply #152 on: May 07, 2018, 01:25:01 PM »
No, folks don't claim that doctrine saves, they just act like it. "If you don't believe like us, then you can't share in the salvation Jesus gives in Holy Communion."
No, you're wrong.  Wrong because we don't prevent others celebrating their own rights amongst themselves, where they may share Jesus salvation.  Maybe, because of their sacramental defects, we cannot be sure that what has God has promised is indeed shared--which is why doctrine matters, blessed assurance to the faithful.  If our church had an exclusively monopoly on the sacraments, you would be correct.  But we don't.  We're not the medieval church of popes persecuting reformers.

Of course, according to our very own ELCA Means of Grace, we are exclusive with our sacraments.  After recent discussion, we continue to restrict holy communion to the baptized, because baptism is what our doctrine says incorporates an individual into the body of Christ.  Of course we have some in the ELCA who dissent from this teaching, because they think their doctrine is "better".
« Last Edit: May 07, 2018, 01:26:43 PM by MaddogLutheran »
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

John Theiss

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 239
    • View Profile
Re: Is God Now a "Ze"?
« Reply #153 on: May 07, 2018, 01:31:19 PM »
Brian, re post # 144 - was I mistaken or did Jesus not say that if you have lusted after a woman you have already committed adultery in your heart?  How can saying that the sin has already occurred be a fence designed to keep you from committing the sin?  Also, while I respect all the researching you do about rabbinical traditions, do you equate those teachings as equal to Scripture?  If not, then at best they are insights into how some people at various times have understood the Hebrew scriptures (which ironically Jesus often notes as being faulty insights among the rabbis of his day and previous to his day). 

foolishpride

  • ALPB Forum Member
  • **
  • Posts: 91
    • View Profile
Re: Is God Now a "Ze"?
« Reply #154 on: May 07, 2018, 03:05:20 PM »
Why would we want to purposively offend Jewish folks who would find it as misusing God's name; breaking the commandment?

Absotively Posilutely conduct Christian worship in a way designed not offend anyone! [on edit]
« Last Edit: May 07, 2018, 03:37:54 PM by foolishpride »

Harry Edmon

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
    • View Profile
Re: Is God Now a "Ze"?
« Reply #155 on: May 07, 2018, 03:42:37 PM »
My pastor told us last night  about a meeting he had with the Rabbi down the street from our church.  She said, "So you are the Lutheran Pastor up the street?   At least we worship the same God".   Our Pastor said, "No, we don't worship the same God since you do not believe Jesus is God".   Her reply, "You really believe that Jesus is God?"

I am thankful I have a Pastor that is brave enough to speak the truth.
Harry Edmon, Ph.D., LCMS Layman

gan ainm

  • Guest
Re: Is God Now a "Ze"?
« Reply #156 on: May 07, 2018, 03:47:56 PM »
Christianity is offensive, and always has been.  Holy is to be set apart by God, thereby causing offense to others who dislike it when one says "we have it right" even though that rightness of doctrine is fully supported by Scripture.  However, if one does not believe in the authority of Scripture (all of it) and that it is inspired and inerrant, arguing the case for right doctrine is futile - for reasons known to God.   An organization trying to please everyone is placing that group on very dangerous turf, perhaps even more so than the lukewarm Laoadicians, perhaps not. 

Matthew 13:56-58 English Standard Version (ESV)
56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.” 58 And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.

Mark 6:2-4 English Standard Version (ESV)
2 And on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things? What is the wisdom given to him? How are such mighty works done by his hands? 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. 4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.”

Romans 9:32-33 English Standard Version (ESV)
32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

Galatians 5:10-12 English Standard Version (ESV)
10 I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view, and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is. 11 But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. 12 I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!

1 Peter 2:7-9 English Standard Version (ESV)
7 So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” 8 and “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.”  They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

Rev Mathew Andersen

  • Guest
Re: Is God Now a "Ze"?
« Reply #157 on: May 07, 2018, 03:49:08 PM »
My pastor told us last night  about a meeting he had with the Rabbi down the street from our church.  She said, "So you are the Lutheran Pastor up the street?   At least we worship the same God".   Our Pastor said, "No, we don't worship the same God since you do not believe Jesus is God".   Her reply, "You really believe that Jesus is God?"

I am thankful I have a Pastor that is brave enough to speak the truth.
I recall listening to one of those "search for God" type programs on the radio in which a Rabbi and a Christian minister were participating with some other religious leaders.  The minister was being one of those kind of vague, all people search for the same God, types. About halfway through the program, the Rabbi asked him "why do you hate me?"  The minister asked "what?" The Rabbi said something along the lines of "look, I don't believe in Jesus but supposedly you do.  Now if I had information I though would save someone eternally, I would share it.  You have not talked about Jesus or Christianity yet.  I can only conclude that you hate me and do not care if I go to your hell."

Harry Edmon

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
    • View Profile
Re: Is God Now a "Ze"?
« Reply #158 on: May 07, 2018, 04:00:39 PM »
My pastor told us last night  about a meeting he had with the Rabbi down the street from our church.  She said, "So you are the Lutheran Pastor up the street?   At least we worship the same God".   Our Pastor said, "No, we don't worship the same God since you do not believe Jesus is God".   Her reply, "You really believe that Jesus is God?"

I am thankful I have a Pastor that is brave enough to speak the truth.
P.S.  He shared this event during class when we were studying the 1st commandment.
Harry Edmon, Ph.D., LCMS Layman

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44655
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Is God Now a "Ze"?
« Reply #159 on: May 07, 2018, 04:05:40 PM »
The same holds for false doctrine. Doctrine matters.

Doctrine matters, but doctrine does not save. God certainly saves many people whose have faulty doctrine.

"Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers." 1 Tim 4:16

“[An overseer]] must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it" (Titus 1:9)... so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior” (Titus 2:10)"

As one commentator put it, "Doctrine matters so much so that our very faith hinges on it as it is the only way we can be saved (Acts 16:30-31) for without the right gospel you’ve got the wrong Savior."


You seem to be quoting a translator who believes doctrine matters more than I and other translators. The same verses from the CEB which doesn't use "doctrine".


Focus on working on your own development and on what you teach. If you do this you will save yourself and those who hear you. (1 Tim 4:16)


They [supervisors] must pay attention to the reliable message as it has been taught to them so that they can encourage people with healthy instruction and refute those who speak against it. (Titus 1:9)


… Instead, they [slaves] should show that they are completely reliable in everything so that they might make the teaching about God our savior attractive in every way. (Titus 2:10)


The "sound teaching" or "healthy instruction" is defined in 1 Timothy 1:11: "That which agrees with the glorious gospel of the blessed God …." It is the teaching that we are sinners saved by God's grace through Jesus Christ that is the "doctrine" that we proclaim.


There are many other doctrines (διδασκαλία) that scriptures speak against: Matthew 15:9 and Mark 7:7 quote Isaiah 29:15. Ephesians 4:14 and Colossians 2:22 speak against "doctrines". Paul uses the word only twice in Romans (a key scripture for Lutherans): 12:7; 15:4; and not at all in Galatians.


Folks who believe the glorious gospel of the blessed God are saved. That's the only teaching that's necessary. All the stuff in the Book of Concord is helpful and important, but it doesn't save. The simple gospel that even an infant can receive brings salvation.
"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]

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13502
    • View Profile
Re: Is God Now a "Ze"?
« Reply #160 on: May 07, 2018, 04:14:14 PM »

Christianity is offensive, and always has been.  Holy is to be set apart by God, thereby causing offense to others who dislike it when one says "we have it right" even though that rightness of doctrine is fully supported by Scripture.  However, if one does not believe in the authority of Scripture (all of it) and that it is inspired and inerrant, arguing the case for right doctrine is futile - for reasons known to God.   An organization trying to please everyone is placing that group on very dangerous turf, perhaps even more so than the lukewarm Laoadicians, perhaps not. 

Any assertion that what one believes is correct and that contrary beliefs are incorrect is inherently arrogant and offensive.  Unless, of course, one is in the ELCA and correcting those in the LCMS.  Then, I guess, it is prophetic
[author=Charles Austin link=topic=6989.msg443054#msg443054 date=1525700737]
I read through the Bivens paper. While one cannot fault the citations from the catechism, and the assertion of the Lutheran view of sacraments; I found the paper somewhat depressing. That is it seemed designed to say: "Well, folks, we got it right. Those other people, they might get it right once in a while, but generally they don't get it right so they "lose the essence" of the sacrament(s) or in fact, do not have them at all."

   I suppose it is an almost inevitable result of religious fervor, but why do we have this need to - again and again, over centuries - put down "the others"?

   This is not distinguishing us from Mormons, or Jehovah's Witnesses, and it is necessary to make those distinctions. But this paranoia about whether they get the sacraments "right" and arrogance in saying that we absolutely do get everything right about the sacraments is disturbing.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2018, 04:17:09 PM by Dan Fienen »
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Steven Tibbetts

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10213
  • Big tents are for circuses.
    • View Profile
Re: Is God Now a "Ze"?
« Reply #161 on: May 07, 2018, 04:16:19 PM »

Secondly, why would we want to purposively offend Jewish folks who would find it as misusing God's name; breaking the commandment?

On one hand, you and I seem to have a surface agreement.  The translation of the Psalms used in LBW occasionally uses "YAHWEH."  When it does so, I say (and in my personal copies have written), "The LORD." 

On the other hand, we already purposely offend Jewish folks by regarding Jesus Christ as God.  So seeking to not-offend them is a bit of a non-starter for Christians.  We simply can't not-offend them as long as we believe this, except when they become Christian.

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

Harvey_Mozolak

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4857
    • View Profile
    • line and letter lettuce
Re: Is God Now a "Ze"?
« Reply #162 on: May 07, 2018, 04:25:23 PM »
all of these aforementioned understandings of Baptism and Communion and how the church body's stance on Christology and Trinity can toss their Baptisms and Communions out... and that a stance always denies??... I am really not contesting questioning of those church bodies but such certainties that are stated are coming (as I read them) not from Scripture and the Confessions as other texts where decisions have already been reached by writers other than the biblical writers and writers of our Confessions....

and then you get something like this:

"Let it suffice to say we acknowledge bread (with or without yeast) and “fruit of the grape vine” (normally fermented but not absolutely excluding unfermented) as the proper elements for the Lord’s Supper."

oh, so when in this volume will we know about unfermented absolutely?  I grant you I do not want to celebrate with grape juice... it has been placed/forced onto an altar where I celebrated and I ignored it and I refused to distribute it... some lay folks did... and what they distributed I cannot say for sure... all that aside... BUT NOT ABSOLUTELY EXCLUDING... as wishy washy as you get in the midst of solid for sure stuff about what others believe and teach and do and what God thinks and does about it.... 

I am a Lutheran but I must let God deal with Pentecostals, Baptists and others that I am not nor do I wish to be...
Harvey S. Mozolak
my poetry blog is listed below:

http://lineandletterlettuce.blogspot.com

Steven W Bohler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4336
    • View Profile
Re: Is God Now a "Ze"?
« Reply #163 on: May 07, 2018, 04:31:43 PM »
The same holds for false doctrine. Doctrine matters.

Doctrine matters, but doctrine does not save. God certainly saves many people whose have faulty doctrine.

"Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers." 1 Tim 4:16

“[An overseer]] must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it" (Titus 1:9)... so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior” (Titus 2:10)"

As one commentator put it, "Doctrine matters so much so that our very faith hinges on it as it is the only way we can be saved (Acts 16:30-31) for without the right gospel you’ve got the wrong Savior."


You seem to be quoting a translator who believes doctrine matters more than I and other translators. The same verses from the CEB which doesn't use "doctrine".


Focus on working on your own development and on what you teach. If you do this you will save yourself and those who hear you. (1 Tim 4:16)


They [supervisors] must pay attention to the reliable message as it has been taught to them so that they can encourage people with healthy instruction and refute those who speak against it. (Titus 1:9)


… Instead, they [slaves] should show that they are completely reliable in everything so that they might make the teaching about God our savior attractive in every way. (Titus 2:10)


The "sound teaching" or "healthy instruction" is defined in 1 Timothy 1:11: "That which agrees with the glorious gospel of the blessed God …." It is the teaching that we are sinners saved by God's grace through Jesus Christ that is the "doctrine" that we proclaim.


There are many other doctrines (διδασκαλία) that scriptures speak against: Matthew 15:9 and Mark 7:7 quote Isaiah 29:15. Ephesians 4:14 and Colossians 2:22 speak against "doctrines". Paul uses the word only twice in Romans (a key scripture for Lutherans): 12:7; 15:4; and not at all in Galatians.


Folks who believe the glorious gospel of the blessed God are saved. That's the only teaching that's necessary. All the stuff in the Book of Concord is helpful and important, but it doesn't save. The simple gospel that even an infant can receive brings salvation.

While wanting to spend (waste?) time arguing about the first section of your post, I will content myself with just the last paragraph, in particular, this: "All the stuff in the Book of Concord is helpful and important, but it doesn't save. The simple gospel that even an infant can receive brings salvation."

Does that mean you don't believe that the teaching -- the DOCTRINE -- of Article IV of the AC is "necessary"?  Or the teaching -- the DOCTRINE -- of Article III?  What gospel do you have if you don't teach of Christ or the forgiveness of sins? 

Really, Rev. Stoffregen, sometimes you outdo yourself.  And not in a good way.

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13502
    • View Profile
Re: Is God Now a "Ze"?
« Reply #164 on: May 07, 2018, 04:39:22 PM »

Should Christians be offended at the anti-Christ and anti-Christian statements in the Talmud?  Or offended at the twisting of Christian teaching done by those few who have attempted to construct a Christian version of Hinduism with Jesus as a Hindi avatar?  There are a number of points where Christianity and Judaism are in agreement,  Similarly there are a number of points where Christianity will agree with Hinduism or Buddhism.  For example most world religions have some form of the Golden Rule.  But there will inevitably be points at which we disagree.  Otherwise we would not be different religions.


As with other areas of life we need to learn to disagree without becoming disagreeable.  The Faith in which I have faith makes a number of assertion about life and how it should be lived as well as what happens after life and the importance of having a proper relationship with the being my faith holds to be God, and how such a proper relationship may be gained.  It is the nature of assertions that when one states something positively, one also states that contradictory assertions are wrong and those who hold such contradictory assertions are wrong.  That should not be offensive especially since I understand that they also consider me with my faith assertions to be wrong.  Nonetheless, I should not consider those who hold those counter-assertions to be necessarily crazy, stupid or (in most cases) evil.  The attitude on the part of some Christians that because Jews did not believe in Jesus as we did that they were evil, sub-human, or lacking in rights was itself an evil attitude.  Similarly, the early persecution of Christians by Jews (when the Jews were more powerful than the Christians) was wrong.
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS