Author Topic: Benne on Bolz-Weber  (Read 15236 times)

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13105
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Benne on Bolz-Weber
« Reply #195 on: December 13, 2018, 06:20:59 PM »
And does God "speak," Pastor Bohler, only through the words of the Bible, only through how you view the words of the Bible, only through the words of the Bible from a particular manuscript, a particular version?
Does God ever speak through the Christian community?
Through human intelligence?
Through science?
Through the faith of committed, faithful Christians?
Through the collective experience and "mind" of the Church or some manifestation of the Body of Christ?
Never mind. I know your answer.
Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. Now in Minnesota. Just finished six great days in a beach house on North Carolina’s Outer Banks, with a bunch of friends and relatives. About 18 of us, and the young folks did all the cooking.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42673
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Benne on Bolz-Weber
« Reply #196 on: December 13, 2018, 06:29:05 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.


No! Jesus teaches that lust is the sin of adultery. Adultery is not the unforgivable sin. It doesn't cause believers to lose their 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]

mj4

  • Guest
Re: Benne on Bolz-Weber
« Reply #197 on: December 13, 2018, 06:46:14 PM »
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 [sic, years], have come to different conclusions about what they say and mean.

So in 1993 the ELCA Conference of Bishops offered their pastoral guidance by expressing their opposition to blessing homosexual relationships, finding nothing in scripture or the confessions to warrant such a blessing. So now we are all in for same sex marriages and if we follow Pr. Bolz-Weber we are approaching the idea of just ditching the whole idea of marriage altogether. In her words, "Burn it down and start all over". I wonder what interpretive tools or exegetical resources we employed to make such a shift in "interpretation".

Oh yeah. We had a decades long campaign largely funded by the Ahmanson Foundation and the bullying and marginalization of those adhering to the pastoral guidance of 1993. That's how we do "interpretation" now.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42673
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Benne on Bolz-Weber
« Reply #198 on: December 13, 2018, 06:50:21 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.


I present the truth as what I believe - and what I believe the Bible and my church teaches. Because it comes from my belief, it is subjective. I could also argue from scriptures, e.g., James, 1 John, and even Luke 3:7-18 for this Sunday that works matter.


"Go and sin no more?" What do you think that means? If we could do that, we wouldn't need Jesus.


Jesus says much the same thing to the man by the pool (John 5:14), where he makes it sound like his sickness and suffering was caused by his sin. Sinning would bring him worse suffering (contrary to what Jesus says about the man born blind in ch. 9).


We also have statements in 1 John that indicate believers do not sin (3:6, 9; 5:18) and that we do sin (1:10; 2:1; 5:16).
"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 #199 on: December 13, 2018, 06:54:38 PM »
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 [sic, years], have come to different conclusions about what they say and mean.

So in 1993 the ELCA Conference of Bishops offered their pastoral guidance by expressing their opposition to blessing homosexual relationships, finding nothing in scripture or the confessions to warrant such a blessing. So now we are all in for same sex marriages and if we follow Pr. Bolz-Weber we are approaching the idea of just ditching the whole idea of marriage altogether. In her words, "Burn it down and start all over". I wonder what interpretive tools or exegetical resources we employed to make such a shift in "interpretation".

Oh yeah. We had a decades long campaign largely funded by the Ahmanson Foundation and the bullying and marginalization of those adhering to the pastoral guidance of 1993. That's how we do "interpretation" now.


My interpretation of the 1993 decision is different than yours. They were opposed to the ELCA creating an official blessing of homosexual relationships. They left it up to local pastors in offering care to homosexual partners to create their own blessing of the relationship.


I know that some of those bishops were not opposed to blessing homosexual relationships.
"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 #200 on: December 13, 2018, 07:00:22 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.
 


No, I do not see anywhere in scriptures that says same-sex marriages or abortions are sinful.


We are called to repent. I just led a study of Zephaniah who proclaimed during the time of Josiah (so we also studied him). His repentance and commitment fo obey the Torah that was found in the temple spared the nation from the destruction God was planning.

Quote
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.


I'm not reducing doctrine to just the Gospel. I'm stating that doctrine is not the Gospel. Doctrine does not save us. When we talk about our salvation, it is totally up to God's grace. It's God's thinking, which is far beyond our ability to comprehend, that brings salvation. Our doctrines are our attempts to try and understand God's ways with us; but our understanding of them is not the same as God's ways.
"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]

mj4

  • Guest
Re: Benne on Bolz-Weber
« Reply #201 on: December 13, 2018, 07:02:34 PM »
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 [sic, years], have come to different conclusions about what they say and mean.

So in 1993 the ELCA Conference of Bishops offered their pastoral guidance by expressing their opposition to blessing homosexual relationships, finding nothing in scripture or the confessions to warrant such a blessing. So now we are all in for same sex marriages and if we follow Pr. Bolz-Weber we are approaching the idea of just ditching the whole idea of marriage altogether. In her words, "Burn it down and start all over". I wonder what interpretive tools or exegetical resources we employed to make such a shift in "interpretation".

Oh yeah. We had a decades long campaign largely funded by the Ahmanson Foundation and the bullying and marginalization of those adhering to the pastoral guidance of 1993. That's how we do "interpretation" now.


My interpretation of the 1993 decision is different than yours. They were opposed to the ELCA creating an official blessing of homosexual relationships. They left it up to local pastors in offering care to homosexual partners to create their own blessing of the relationship.


I know that some of those bishops were not opposed to blessing homosexual relationships.

Clearly, you were not alone in how you understood the 1993 statement, but the Bishop's statement encouraged offering pastoral care, not a blessing. There is a difference.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42673
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Benne on Bolz-Weber
« Reply #202 on: December 13, 2018, 07:11:38 PM »
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 [sic, years], have come to different conclusions about what they say and mean.

So in 1993 the ELCA Conference of Bishops offered their pastoral guidance by expressing their opposition to blessing homosexual relationships, finding nothing in scripture or the confessions to warrant such a blessing. So now we are all in for same sex marriages and if we follow Pr. Bolz-Weber we are approaching the idea of just ditching the whole idea of marriage altogether. In her words, "Burn it down and start all over". I wonder what interpretive tools or exegetical resources we employed to make such a shift in "interpretation".

Oh yeah. We had a decades long campaign largely funded by the Ahmanson Foundation and the bullying and marginalization of those adhering to the pastoral guidance of 1993. That's how we do "interpretation" now.


My interpretation of the 1993 decision is different than yours. They were opposed to the ELCA creating an official blessing of homosexual relationships. They left it up to local pastors in offering care to homosexual partners to create their own blessing of the relationship.


I know that some of those bishops were not opposed to blessing homosexual relationships.

Clearly, you were not alone in how you understood the 1993 statement, but the Bishop's statement encouraged offering pastoral care, not a blessing. There is a difference.


In discussions I had with other clergy, many concluded that pastoral care could include a blessing ritual. The language of the statement was left ambiguous so that it could be approved by the conference. In a similar way, there were bishops who used the "may" rubric of discipline to allow them to privately admonish non-compliant clergy (namely, homosexuals in a relationship) without removing them from their Calls or the clergy roster.
"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]

mj4

  • Guest
Re: Benne on Bolz-Weber
« Reply #203 on: December 13, 2018, 07:27:03 PM »
The language of the statement was left ambiguous...

Ambiguous or duplicitous?

Mark Brown

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
  • Pastor, St. Mark Lutheran, West Henrietta, NY
    • View Profile
    • Saint Mark's Website
Re: Benne on Bolz-Weber
« Reply #204 on: December 13, 2018, 08:53:30 PM »
It gets much easier when you realize that Pr. Stoffregen is part of a gnostic cult, probably of one.  You can only be admitted to the higher knowledge and the true readings when you submit to his esoterica. 

Steven W Bohler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3680
    • View Profile
Re: Benne on Bolz-Weber
« Reply #205 on: December 13, 2018, 10:32:06 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.
 


No, I do not see anywhere in scriptures that says same-sex marriages or abortions are sinful.


We are called to repent. I just led a study of Zephaniah who proclaimed during the time of Josiah (so we also studied him). His repentance and commitment fo obey the Torah that was found in the temple spared the nation from the destruction God was planning.

Quote
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.


I'm not reducing doctrine to just the Gospel. I'm stating that doctrine is not the Gospel. Doctrine does not save us. When we talk about our salvation, it is totally up to God's grace. It's God's thinking, which is far beyond our ability to comprehend, that brings salvation. Our doctrines are our attempts to try and understand God's ways with us; but our understanding of them is not the same as God's ways.

1. I did not say "same-sex marriage".  I said homosexual relations.  And if you do not know of any prohibitions in Scripture (Old AND New Testaments) against such, then you are one sorry excuse for a so-called Biblical scholar.

2) As to abortion: "Thou shalt not kill".  There are others, but that one suffices.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2018, 10:40:54 PM by Steven W Bohler »

Steven Tibbetts

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10214
  • Big tents are for circuses.
    • View Profile
Re: Benne on Bolz-Weber
« Reply #206 on: December 13, 2018, 11:30:41 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.

No! Jesus teaches that lust is the sin of adultery. Adultery is not the unforgivable sin. It doesn't cause believers to lose their salvation.

[Especially in light of your post in this subject 31 minutes later:] Huh? 

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

Steven Tibbetts

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10214
  • Big tents are for circuses.
    • View Profile
Re: Benne on Bolz-Weber
« Reply #207 on: December 14, 2018, 12:06:34 AM »
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 [sic, years], have come to different conclusions about what they say and mean.

So in 1993 the ELCA Conference of Bishops offered their pastoral guidance by expressing their opposition to blessing homosexual relationships, finding nothing in scripture or the confessions to warrant such a blessing. So now we are all in for same sex marriages and if we follow Pr. Bolz-Weber we are approaching the idea of just ditching the whole idea of marriage altogether. In her words, "Burn it down and start all over". I wonder what interpretive tools or exegetical resources we employed to make such a shift in "interpretation".


My interpretation of the 1993 decision is different than yours. They were opposed to the ELCA creating an official blessing of homosexual relationships. They left it up to local pastors in offering care to homosexual partners to create their own blessing of the relationship.


Earlier in this century in a LutherLink meeting Brian offered this "interpretation" of the Bishops' statement.  Among the participants who responded that Brian's "interpretation" was utter nonsense was Bishop Ken Sauer, who in 1993 was the Chair of the Conference of Bishops.  One can read similarly in the article "1993 bishops statement: 'No ambiguity,' no blessings, says then-chairperson Sauer" in the May-June 2005 issue of the WordAlone Network News

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

Steven Tibbetts

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10214
  • Big tents are for circuses.
    • View Profile
Re: Benne on Bolz-Weber
« Reply #208 on: December 14, 2018, 12:08:49 AM »
The language of the statement was left ambiguous...

Ambiguous or duplicitous?

Are you asking this of the Conference of Bishops or Pastor Stoffregen?
The Rev. Steven Paul Tibbetts, STS
Pastor Zip's Blog

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42673
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Benne on Bolz-Weber
« Reply #209 on: December 14, 2018, 02:02:08 AM »

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.

No! Jesus teaches that lust is the sin of adultery. Adultery is not the unforgivable sin. It doesn't cause believers to lose their salvation.

[Especially in light of your post in this subject 31 minutes later:] Huh?


What's the problem? The ancient Israelites repeatedly sinned against God. They were punished for their idolatry; but they never ceased being God's Chosen People. God's promises to Abraham and his offspring would be fulfilled in spite of the people's sinfulness.
"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]