Author Topic: Benne on Bolz-Weber  (Read 15226 times)

DCharlton

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 6813
    • View Profile
Re: Benne on Bolz-Weber
« Reply #180 on: December 13, 2018, 10:25:17 AM »
So, is ya'll the ELCA spelling of y'all?   ;) How is that pronounced? Ya' ill ?

Ya + all = ya'll.  It's pronounced with a double, not a single a:  yaall ;)

Actually, it's the contraction between "you" and "all," and therefore "y'all."  Used so much around my parts that I've picked it up as well!   ;D ;)

Yes, as I stated. We received a thank you from Eric Johnson, President of the LCMS Southern District for our disaster relief door offering/donation. He hand wrote: "Wow! Y'all are great!" That's LA.

Ya mean you sent help to the Panhandle of Florida, Lower Alabama?  What a coincidence.  That would be right where I live.  Niceville, Florida.  I've been to Panama City three times sense Hurricane Michael.    Y'all are taking this way too seriously.  I know I misspelled the word, I just think its funny to have two guys from the north instruct me on what y'all means.  I've been using that contraction my whole life. 
David Charlton  

Was Algul Siento a divinity school?

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42673
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Benne on Bolz-Weber
« Reply #181 on: December 13, 2018, 10:45:30 AM »
Charles is right. The LCMS has always found ways to disagree with the ELCA and its predecessors. 2009 changed nothing; it simply added one more complaint to a list of hundreds.

2009 did give an added advantage for the right wing of Missouri. Opposition to open endorsement of homosexuality is easier to sell politically than say, closed communion. Missouri's right wing often has problems convincing lay people of the need for its isolationist practices. 2009 was a real gift from the ELCA to that important Missouri group.   :)

Peace, JOHN

I think there is a huge difference between 1. The LCMS disagrees with ELCA doctrine, and 2. The LCMS says God's Word, Holy Scripture, disagrees with ELCA doctrine.

No, there is essentially no difference. The second is still the LCMS’s interpretation of Holy Scriptures

Another perspective is the first is more inwardly focused (as Luther would say, bent inward) and could be perceived as judgemental, the second is more externally focused on God who says judgement is mine.   8)


Nope, your "externally focused" gets filtered through one's own inwards. Both the ELCA and LCMS look to scriptures and our confessions to guide our decisions; yet, because we have different ways of interpreting them, we, over the centuries, have come to different conclusions about what they say and mean.

Gosh, the LCMS and ELCA have been around far longer than I thought.   ;)  Or, did WE suddenly jump from the context of this discussion to  a different WE by YOUR interpretation?   :o  And, for the difference in interpretation of Scripture between THEE and ME, I'm not willing to bet my eternity on your method of Scripture interpretation that rewrites Christian doctrine of the past two thousand years, are you?

Who has rewritten Christian doctrine. I've stressed over and over and over again the core Christian doctrine since Paul established it: We are sinners saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

I believe that it's those folks who insist that a particular opinion about abortion or homosexual relationships are required for salvation who are messing with the traditional doctrine of salvation by grace through faith. I don't believe that one's eternity is determined by a particular position on those two issues. Do you?

Yes, I do. You're right back into your antinomian view, Brian, failing to properly distinguish Law and Gospel. Perhaps Tim Pauls can help you out.

http://scholia.net/files/sermons_adventchristmas/14%20Series%203%20Absolution%20Del.%20fr.%20Judgment%20John%2012%20v.%2046-50%20(TJP).pdf

Your view is the rationalizing of sin about which he speaks, thereby hanging on to a particular sin, rejecting God's grace, and that's the one that'll get you.

"Thesis XIX.

In the fifteenth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when the preacher speaks of certain sins as if there were not of a damnable, but of a venial nature." [ Walther's Law and Gospel]


Nope. I'm not talking about someone who has had an abortion or who is homosexual. I'm talking about the self-righteous people who judge those who have had abortions or who engage in same-sex marriages (and those who support such decisions) as being unchristian. Such judgers have made these two issues into a doctrine of salvation in their own minds.


Do you consider it a sin to condemn homosexual who engage in sexual behaviors? Do you repent of that sin?
"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: 11299
    • View Profile
Re: Benne on Bolz-Weber
« Reply #182 on: December 13, 2018, 11:55:30 AM »
Nope. I'm not talking about someone who has had an abortion or who is homosexual. I'm talking about the self-righteous people who judge those who have had abortions or who engage in same-sex marriages (and those who support such decisions) as being unchristian. Such judgers have made these two issues into a doctrine of salvation in their own minds.

Nope, they have not. Being an enabler of sin is sinful.

Do you consider it a sin to condemn homosexual who engage in sexual behaviors?

I'm not going to play your word games, Brian. If you mean is it a sin to warn homosexuals that engaging in unrepentant same-sex sexual behavior  puts their salvation in jeopardy, no it is not.

Do you repent of that sin?

NA
Don Kirchner

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

Steven W Bohler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3680
    • View Profile
Re: Benne on Bolz-Weber
« Reply #183 on: December 13, 2018, 02:47:31 PM »
Charles is right. The LCMS has always found ways to disagree with the ELCA and its predecessors. 2009 changed nothing; it simply added one more complaint to a list of hundreds.

2009 did give an added advantage for the right wing of Missouri. Opposition to open endorsement of homosexuality is easier to sell politically than say, closed communion. Missouri's right wing often has problems convincing lay people of the need for its isolationist practices. 2009 was a real gift from the ELCA to that important Missouri group.   :)

Peace, JOHN

I think there is a huge difference between 1. The LCMS disagrees with ELCA doctrine, and 2. The LCMS says God's Word, Holy Scripture, disagrees with ELCA doctrine.


No, there is essentially no difference. The second is still the LCMS’s interpretation of Holy Scriptures

Another perspective is the first is more inwardly focused (as Luther would say, bent inward) and could be perceived as judgemental, the second is more externally focused on God who says judgement is mine.   8)


Nope, your "externally focused" gets filtered through one's own inwards. Both the ELCA and LCMS look to scriptures and our confessions to guide our decisions; yet, because we have different ways of interpreting them, we, over the centuries, have come to different conclusions about what they say and mean.

Gosh, the LCMS and ELCA have been around far longer than I thought.   ;)  Or, did WE suddenly jump from the context of this discussion to  a different WE by YOUR interpretation?   :o  And, for the difference in interpretation of Scripture between THEE and ME, I'm not willing to bet my eternity on your method of Scripture interpretation that rewrites Christian doctrine of the past two thousand years, are you?


Who has rewritten Christian doctrine. I've stressed over and over and over again the core Christian doctrine since Paul established it: We are sinners saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ.


I believe that it's those folks who insist that a particular opinion about abortion or homosexual relationships are required for salvation who are messing with the traditional doctrine of salvation by grace through faith. I don't believe that one's eternity is determined by a particular position on those two issues. Do you?

Who has re-written Christian doctrine?  You.  You can't just say that this part of Christian doctrine is unchangeable and that part may be changed.  It is a unified whole.  It is ALL God's Word to us.  What you consider unchangeable, another may just as well consider optional or changeable.  Why is YOUR version better than his?  Or God's?

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42673
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Benne on Bolz-Weber
« Reply #184 on: December 13, 2018, 04:02:20 PM »
Nope. I'm not talking about someone who has had an abortion or who is homosexual. I'm talking about the self-righteous people who judge those who have had abortions or who engage in same-sex marriages (and those who support such decisions) as being unchristian. Such judgers have made these two issues into a doctrine of salvation in their own minds.

Nope, they have not. Being an enabler of sin is sinful.

Do you consider it a sin to condemn homosexual who engage in sexual behaviors?

I'm not going to play your word games, Brian. If you mean is it a sin to warn homosexuals that engaging in unrepentant same-sex sexual behavior  puts their salvation in jeopardy, no it is not.


OK, I get it. Salvation comes from refraining from improper sexual behaviors. All of us who have lusted in our hearts are in danger.


When say that it puts their salvation in jeopardy, I see that as condemning them. It is looking at the speck in their eyes whle ignoring the log in your own - and I'm probably doing the same thing by typing the sentence.

"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]

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42673
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Benne on Bolz-Weber
« Reply #185 on: December 13, 2018, 04:05:09 PM »
Who has re-written Christian doctrine?  You.  You can't just say that this part of Christian doctrine is unchangeable and that part may be changed.  It is a unified whole.  It is ALL God's Word to us.  What you consider unchangeable, another may just as well consider optional or changeable.  Why is YOUR version better than his?  Or God's?


I'm stating that Christian doctrine has not been changed one iota. It's your additions to Christian doctrine that I'm objecting two - that one is saved by one's opinion about abortions and/or homosexual relationships. I don't believe those are doctrinal issues of our Christian faith. They are not mentioned in any creeds.
"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: 11299
    • View Profile
Re: Benne on Bolz-Weber
« Reply #186 on: December 13, 2018, 04:05:43 PM »
Nope. I'm not talking about someone who has had an abortion or who is homosexual. I'm talking about the self-righteous people who judge those who have had abortions or who engage in same-sex marriages (and those who support such decisions) as being unchristian. Such judgers have made these two issues into a doctrine of salvation in their own minds.

Nope, they have not. Being an enabler of sin is sinful.

Do you consider it a sin to condemn homosexual who engage in sexual behaviors?

I'm not going to play your word games, Brian. If you mean is it a sin to warn homosexuals that engaging in unrepentant same-sex sexual behavior  puts their salvation in jeopardy, no it is not.


OK, I get it. Salvation comes from refraining from improper sexual behaviors. All of us who have lusted in our hearts are in danger.


When say that it puts their salvation in jeopardy, I see that as condemning them. It is looking at the speck in their eyes whle ignoring the log in your own - and I'm probably doing the same thing by typing the sentence.

No, you don't get it, Brian. Perhaps it would help to go back and read Tim Pauls' sermon on Absolution and Judgment to which I linked above, for you never seem to have understood the proper distinction between Law and Gospel. You confirm that in your response to Steve Bohler, immediately above.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2018, 04:07:31 PM by Pr. Don Kirchner »
Don Kirchner

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

MaddogLutheran

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3461
  • It's my fantasy football avatar...
    • View Profile
Re: Benne on Bolz-Weber
« Reply #187 on: December 13, 2018, 04:06:06 PM »
Nope. I'm not talking about someone who has had an abortion or who is homosexual. I'm talking about the self-righteous people who judge those who have had abortions or who engage in same-sex marriages (and those who support such decisions) as being unchristian. Such judgers have made these two issues into a doctrine of salvation in their own minds.

Nope, they have not. Being an enabler of sin is sinful.

Do you consider it a sin to condemn homosexual who engage in sexual behaviors?

I'm not going to play your word games, Brian. If you mean is it a sin to warn homosexuals that engaging in unrepentant same-sex sexual behavior  puts their salvation in jeopardy, no it is not.


OK, I get it. Salvation comes from refraining from improper sexual behaviors. All of us who have lusted in our hearts are in danger.


When say that it puts their salvation in jeopardy, I see that as condemning them. It is looking at the speck in their eyes whle ignoring the log in your own - and I'm probably doing the same thing by typing the sentence.
Again, you really need to stop misrepresenting what other people are saying.  You've done this repeatedly on this topic over the years by insisting that what I have bolded.  This is fundamentally dishonest and you should be ashamed, but instead you revel in it.   >:(


Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

MaddogLutheran

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3461
  • It's my fantasy football avatar...
    • View Profile
Re: Benne on Bolz-Weber
« Reply #188 on: December 13, 2018, 04:08:27 PM »
Who has re-written Christian doctrine?  You.  You can't just say that this part of Christian doctrine is unchangeable and that part may be changed.  It is a unified whole.  It is ALL God's Word to us.  What you consider unchangeable, another may just as well consider optional or changeable.  Why is YOUR version better than his?  Or God's?


I'm stating that Christian doctrine has not been changed one iota. It's your additions to Christian doctrine that I'm objecting two - that one is saved by one's opinion about abortions and/or homosexual relationships. I don't believe those are doctrinal issues of our Christian faith. They are not mentioned in any creeds.
And here it is again, the claim of an absolute/objective truth, even as you regularly deny that they exist when others attempt to raise them.  Especially about doctrine...it's like clockwork with you to try and win an argument.  Such hypocrisy.   :P
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42673
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Benne on Bolz-Weber
« Reply #189 on: December 13, 2018, 04:12:52 PM »
Nope. I'm not talking about someone who has had an abortion or who is homosexual. I'm talking about the self-righteous people who judge those who have had abortions or who engage in same-sex marriages (and those who support such decisions) as being unchristian. Such judgers have made these two issues into a doctrine of salvation in their own minds.

Nope, they have not. Being an enabler of sin is sinful.

Do you consider it a sin to condemn homosexual who engage in sexual behaviors?

I'm not going to play your word games, Brian. If you mean is it a sin to warn homosexuals that engaging in unrepentant same-sex sexual behavior  puts their salvation in jeopardy, no it is not.


OK, I get it. Salvation comes from refraining from improper sexual behaviors. All of us who have lusted in our hearts are in danger.


When say that it puts their salvation in jeopardy, I see that as condemning them. It is looking at the speck in their eyes whle ignoring the log in your own - and I'm probably doing the same thing by typing the sentence.
Again, you really need to stop misrepresenting what other people are saying.  You've done this repeatedly on this topic over the years by insisting that what I have bolded.  This is fundamentally dishonest and you should be ashamed, but instead you revel in it.   >:(


Maybe that's not what you're saying, but it is certainly what I am hearing. In addition, your attacks against me and others who support choice, confirm my statement. For those who are pro-choice, they are saved by faith in Jesus Christ. For those who are anti-abortion, they are saved by faith in Jesus Christ. The same is true for folks on both sides of the homosexual issue.
"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]

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42673
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Benne on Bolz-Weber
« Reply #190 on: December 13, 2018, 04:14:14 PM »
Who has re-written Christian doctrine?  You.  You can't just say that this part of Christian doctrine is unchangeable and that part may be changed.  It is a unified whole.  It is ALL God's Word to us.  What you consider unchangeable, another may just as well consider optional or changeable.  Why is YOUR version better than his?  Or God's?


I'm stating that Christian doctrine has not been changed one iota. It's your additions to Christian doctrine that I'm objecting two - that one is saved by one's opinion about abortions and/or homosexual relationships. I don't believe those are doctrinal issues of our Christian faith. They are not mentioned in any creeds.
And here it is again, the claim of an absolute/objective truth, even as you regularly deny that they exist when others attempt to raise them.  Especially about doctrine...it's like clockwork with you to try and win an argument.  Such hypocrisy.   :P


Yup, I'm a forgiven hypocrite. And you?
"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]

Steven Tibbetts

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10214
  • Big tents are for circuses.
    • View Profile
Re: Benne on Bolz-Weber
« Reply #191 on: December 13, 2018, 04:41:40 PM »

I'm not going to play your word games, Brian. If you mean is it a sin to warn homosexuals that engaging in unrepentant same-sex sexual behavior  puts their salvation in jeopardy, no it is not.

OK, I get it. Salvation comes from refraining from improper sexual behaviors. All of us who have lusted in our hearts are in danger.


No, you don't "get it."  No one here, except you, has written anything like, "Salvation comes from refraining from improper [insert just about any noun, verb,or participle here]."  And Jesus himself teaches that anyone who lusts in his heart is in danger losing salvation.


« Last Edit: December 13, 2018, 04:43:42 PM by The Rev. Steven P. Tibbetts, STS »
The Rev. Steven Paul Tibbetts, STS
Pastor Zip's Blog

MaddogLutheran

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3461
  • It's my fantasy football avatar...
    • View Profile
Re: Benne on Bolz-Weber
« Reply #192 on: December 13, 2018, 04:47:15 PM »
Nope. I'm not talking about someone who has had an abortion or who is homosexual. I'm talking about the self-righteous people who judge those who have had abortions or who engage in same-sex marriages (and those who support such decisions) as being unchristian. Such judgers have made these two issues into a doctrine of salvation in their own minds.

Nope, they have not. Being an enabler of sin is sinful.

Do you consider it a sin to condemn homosexual who engage in sexual behaviors?

I'm not going to play your word games, Brian. If you mean is it a sin to warn homosexuals that engaging in unrepentant same-sex sexual behavior  puts their salvation in jeopardy, no it is not.


OK, I get it. Salvation comes from refraining from improper sexual behaviors. All of us who have lusted in our hearts are in danger.


When say that it puts their salvation in jeopardy, I see that as condemning them. It is looking at the speck in their eyes whle ignoring the log in your own - and I'm probably doing the same thing by typing the sentence.
Again, you really need to stop misrepresenting what other people are saying.  You've done this repeatedly on this topic over the years by insisting that what I have bolded.  This is fundamentally dishonest and you should be ashamed, but instead you revel in it.   >:(


Maybe that's not what you're saying, but it is certainly what I am hearing. In addition, your attacks against me and others who support choice, confirm my statement. For those who are pro-choice, they are saved by faith in Jesus Christ. For those who are anti-abortion, they are saved by faith in Jesus Christ. The same is true for folks on both sides of the homosexual issue.

First of all, I am not attacking your choice here.  Another misrepresentation by you.  I go out of my way to point out that there isn't any sin that can't be forgiven by God.  I've pointed out to you that at my synod's most recent assembly, it was suggested that this church exercise the office of the keys and NOT forgive the sins of those who perpetuate racism--there was not any nuance about whether the sinner was penitent, which is something else you have had trouble with here in discussion over the years, but I digress.  This attitude is the very thing you attack when put forth by Missouri Synod people, even as it is happening in our own body.

But to reiterate my point, NO ONE is suggesting that salvation is dependent on having the correct doctrine, such as being pro-life.  You yourself insist that there is correct doctrine, that same-sex relationships are God pleasing and those who disagree are wrong, is exactly why you are a hypocrite.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2018, 04:56:11 PM by MaddogLutheran »
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

MaddogLutheran

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3461
  • It's my fantasy football avatar...
    • View Profile
Re: Benne on Bolz-Weber
« Reply #193 on: December 13, 2018, 04:55:12 PM »
Who has re-written Christian doctrine?  You.  You can't just say that this part of Christian doctrine is unchangeable and that part may be changed.  It is a unified whole.  It is ALL God's Word to us.  What you consider unchangeable, another may just as well consider optional or changeable.  Why is YOUR version better than his?  Or God's?


I'm stating that Christian doctrine has not been changed one iota. It's your additions to Christian doctrine that I'm objecting two - that one is saved by one's opinion about abortions and/or homosexual relationships. I don't believe those are doctrinal issues of our Christian faith. They are not mentioned in any creeds.
And here it is again, the claim of an absolute/objective truth, even as you regularly deny that they exist when others attempt to raise them.  Especially about doctrine...it's like clockwork with you to try and win an argument.  Such hypocrisy.   :P


Yup, I'm a forgiven hypocrite. And you?
I know I am forgiven.  Any time you want to point out to me that I'm being hypocritical, be my guest.  Just make sure you are honestly and accurately representing my position--something you historically have had problems doing accurately.  I am acutely aware of many of my sins, but Jesus command to the woman caught in adultery speaks to all of us:  go and sin no more.  As in being penitent and changing our ways when our sins are called out to us.  In your case, that means acknowledging that you believe there are absolute objective truths about certain doctrines, as your words on this thread demonstrate.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2018, 05:01:43 PM by MaddogLutheran »
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

Steven W Bohler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3680
    • View Profile
Re: Benne on Bolz-Weber
« Reply #194 on: December 13, 2018, 05:12:15 PM »
Who has re-written Christian doctrine?  You.  You can't just say that this part of Christian doctrine is unchangeable and that part may be changed.  It is a unified whole.  It is ALL God's Word to us.  What you consider unchangeable, another may just as well consider optional or changeable.  Why is YOUR version better than his?  Or God's?


I'm stating that Christian doctrine has not been changed one iota. It's your additions to Christian doctrine that I'm objecting two - that one is saved by one's opinion about abortions and/or homosexual relationships. I don't believe those are doctrinal issues of our Christian faith. They are not mentioned in any creeds.

What does the word "doctrine" mean, O famous studier of words?  Teaching, right?  And the Bible -- therefore God -- teaches that things like homosexual relations and abortion are sinful.  It also teaches that those who refuse to repent are in jeopardy. 

You want to reduce doctrine to just the Gospel, but that is NOT how God does it.  He speaks, teaches, indoctrinates using Law AND Gospel.