The Gospels -- Jesus Remembered

[Charles_Austin]

Pastor McCain writes:
Pr. Austin, have you received some permission of which the rest of us are unaware to post public comments to the moderator rather than using the "report to moderator" link? You've done this several times. I've been told by the moderator to use the "report to moderator" link. I think that this behavior on your part: "poisons the discussion and diminishes the larger intent of this forum."

I respond:
Oh, please! Who is banned from posting public comments to anyone?

Pastor McCain:
Rather than whining about others' comments, perhaps you might consider actually engaging in theological defense of Brian's assertions that the Resurrection accounts are parables.

Me:
You miss the point again. I am neither defending nor disputing Pastor Stoffregen's postings. I am arguing for civil conversation here, as befits brothers and sisters in the Christian faith. I have never heard anyone on this forum say they do not believe that Christ died for their sins, and rose that we may have eternal life. I have not heard anyone on this forum say they do not believe we are saved by grace through faith. You and I have disagreements on that faith - from my perspective, some of them severe - but I do not denounce your postings as "idle speculation" or "heretical." I do find them judgmental and disruptive of productive dialog. And in this forum we should not call one another pejorative names. (And one delicious irony is: given Pastor Stoffregen's exhaustive and extensive knowledge of biblical languages and his homiletical postings explaining the texts, one could hardly call his comments "idle" speculations! We should all be so "idle".)

[ptmccain]

From my reading of Brian's musings about the Gospel accounts of Christ's resurrection being parables, I've concluded that with such comments and such beliefs he has placed himself outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity. You may disagree. You may consider such remarks to be "uncivil." But I'm not saying Brian is a mean person. He is, as far as I can tell, perfectly nice. This is not about Brian. It is about his public confession.

Perhaps you should stick to the subject and avoid your desire always to reduce all serious conversations to a conversation about civility.

Stick to the issues.

I believe Brian's "musings" are heretical.

Please explain why you do not.

[scott3]

Stick to the issues.

To turn Yoda-like for a second: "Luck to you I wish."

[Gladfelteri]

Me:  You miss the point again. I am neither defending nor disputing Pastor Stoffregen's postings. I am arguing for civil conversation here, as befits brothers and sisters in the Christian faith. I have never heard anyone on this forum say they do not believe that Christ died for their sins, and rose that we may have eternal life. I have not heard anyone on this forum say they do not believe we are saved by grace through faith. You and I have disagreements on that faith - from my perspective, some of them severe - but I do not denounce your postings as "idle speculation" or "heretical." I do find them judgmental and disruptive of productive dialog. And in this forum we should not call one another pejorative names. (And one delicious irony is: given Pastor Stoffregen's exhaustive and extensive knowledge of biblical languages and his homiletical postings explaining the texts, one could hardly call his comments "idle" speculations! We should all be so "idle".)

I agree with Charles on this one.  You do not have to agree with someone all the time in order to learn from them.  I learn a lot from Brian and Charles (and all you other guys.)  And (paraphrasing Sly Stallone / Rocky Balboa in one of his "Rocky" films - the one in which he fights the Russian, "if I can . . . we all can." 

The quality of our discussions here is as good as, if not better at times, than that at a lot of seminars I attend.

[Steven Tibbetts]

This is not about Brian. It is about his public confession.

I know -- I'm young, idealistic, and all those other things that we're supposed to grow out of.  OTOH, I find myself ofter speak of "those new young pastors," and I've been in the parish for 15 years and have learned much more theology and Scripture than I ever learned in seminary.

I've also learned more from the Reformers and, especially, the Church Fathers.

Paul may be a bit more blunt than I, but his concerns and mine are the same.  Granted, I don't know exactly what Pr. Stoffregan preaches from his pulpit.  But what I read online is corrosive to the Faith and must be countered.  Being winsome, genial, and scholarly doesn't change the corrosive nature of his teaching here.

Christe eleison, Steven+

[peter_speckhard]

I'm not sure if I am officially the moderator being appealed to, but I will say this much-- please do not address posts directly at another person on the board unless it is needed to address the topic. Comments about someone else's lack of charity are just as disruptive as the alleged lack of charity. And though sarcasm is sanctified by God's use of it in Job 38 ff. we should avoid it here except in fun. Complaints about another person should be done privately through the moderator, or directly with that person if we can all keep it friendly. I know first-hand that this works because when I first started posting here I got a little carried away in the spirit of argumentation against our beloved moderator Richard Johnson, and later apologized via the personal message feature, and he said it was cool, no need for a public posting of it.

To call somebody else's opinion heretical is not necessarily uncharitable. It is a evaluation. If we are all duty bound to accept any proposition put forward on this board as orthodox then what that really amounts to is a policy of declaring conservatives wrong from the get-go. IMHO the idea that the resurrection wasn't literal but was somehow "experieced" despite Jesus still rotting away in the tomb is not Christian any more than the idea that He didn't really die on the cross (as I'm told Muslims believe) is Christian. It is an idea. Some might like it and want to discuss it. But just because it is put forward doesn't mean it is orthodox, and if someone thinks it is heretical they have every right to make that claim as part of the discussion. Just so long as it does not devolve into personal attacks, sarcastic dismissals, or the sort of words where a nasty tone of voice can easily be inferred.  

[LutherMan]

  But what I read online is corrosive to the Faith and must be countered.  Being winsome, genial, and scholarly doesn't change the corrosive nature of his teaching here.

Christe eleison, Steven+

Pewsitting lurkers without a theological education need the counterpoints that the more orthodox here offer.  If the Gospel accounts are not the true word of God, What would be the point of being a Christian believer, with faith?

[Charles_Austin]

So "heretic" is not a nasty word? And "idle speculation" is not a personal attack on the presentation of one who has certainly demonstrated that he does not sit and look at daisies and make conclusions about faith? And I shan't even try to raise the question of precisely what constitutes "orthodoxy".  And has anyone heard anybody else here say the Gospel accounts are not the true word of God?

The nature of this discussion is changing drastically, in ways that I fear will make this place inhospitable for those who hold and want to discuss views that are not LC-MS orthodoxy.

[peter_speckhard]

There are many, many non-LCMS people in this forum, and I don't think the forum is becoming inhospitable to them or their views. It seems to me that with a few bumps here and there the discussions in general have been pretty good lately. Yes, LCMS people will not likely simply assume that whatever anyone posts here is orthodox Christianity. No surprise there. And they will say so, unless the forum is inhospitable to their views, which it isn't. But the amount of space between Brian's views and LCMS orthodoxy is expansive indeed, and there is plenty of room for everyone in between. 

[scott3]

The nature of this discussion is changing drastically, in ways that I fear will make this place inhospitable for those who hold and want to discuss views that are not LC-MS orthodoxy.

Actually, lately this place has become more interesting (at least to me) because there's been less discussion about how to discuss and the possibility of discussing and more actually dealing with issues.  But welcome back, anyway.

[Brian Stoffregen]

From my reading of Brian's musings about the Gospel accounts of Christ's resurrection being parables, I've concluded that with such comments and such beliefs he has placed himself outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity.

And I've asked you, specifically, to deal with the biblical texts -- and you won't. You would rather attack, than present biblical supports for your views -- by the way, what are your interpretations on the resurrection narratives. All you've done is attack what I've said without offering any sort of personal positions on the resurrection appearance texts -- including those in Acts and 1 Corinthians.

Perhaps you should stick to the subject and avoid your desire always to reduce all serious conversations to a conversation about civility.

Stick to the issues.

Perhaps you should take your own advice.

I believe Brian's "musings" are heretical.
Please explain why you do not.

When are you going to explain why you think that they are not. You just make charges.

I have not once denied the reality of the crucifixion or the resurrection. I have argued that the stories of the resurrection appearances were written with meanings that go beyond just relating what happened historically. I have argued that the biblical texts indicate that Jesus' resurrected body had to have been something different than our bodies. It appeared as light. It could disappear. It could enter a locked room. It was not immediately recognized by his closest friends. Take issue with the biblical texts. Offer alternative interpretations.

At least Steven was willing to answer the question about whether or not Mark 16:8 was historically and factually true. You haven't even bothered to enter that discussion.

Over the years, Irl and I have had many disagreements in this forum, but he is willing to buy and read Borg's book -- and I the book he recommended. You pretend to already know everything that Borg might say so, in your mind, he's not even worth reading. So why do you bother discussing him?

[Brian Stoffregen]

Pewsitting lurkers without a theological education need the counterpoints that the more orthodox here offer.  If the Gospel accounts are not the true word of God, What would be the point of being a Christian believer, with faith?

Again, I believe that the gospel accounts are the true word of God. But like with the parables, and similes, and metaphors, that Jesus tells, they are true without necessarily being historically factual. The stories of the Good Samaritan or the Prodigal son or the shepherd seeking the one lost sheep probably never happened in history; but that doesn't make the stories false. It is part of Hebrew thinking to present the truth in stories -- and the stories do not necessarily have to be factual to convey truth.

[Gladfelteri]

Like me!    Brian, your weekly exegetical studies are an important resource for my preaching and for my own study.  I learn a lot from them, and they also help me brush up on my Greek.    Keep up the fine work !

Thanks -- and I await the arrival of the eyewitness book you recommended.

Youre welcome.    (I have ordered the Borg book.)

Blessings,
Irl

[Brian Stoffregen]

Thanks -- and I await the arrival of the eyewitness book you recommended. 

Youre welcome.    (I have ordered the Borg book.)

God bless Amazon.com
(Although I have had people curse me for introducing them to that website when it was first starting.)

[Keith Falk]

Are the discussions/questions moving across two different planes?  Feel free to correct or clarify my stating of your positions if I am incorrect.

It seems as though Brian is presenting two different (though not necessarily incompatible) points.  The first is that the execution and resurrection narratives are best understood and interpreted as parables.  The historicity of the resurrection is much less important than the results it produced.  (end point #1).  Also, when one confesses that the resurrection is historically, factually, true, Brian is trying to determine what that means.  When one confesses that Jesus was raised from the dead... what does that mean in terms of the physicality of the body, especially in light of the witness of Scripture (end point #2), and what bearing does that have on confessing the historicity/fact of the resurrection (combination points #1 & #2)

It seems as though Paul is saying that it is pointless to debate or even to discuss whether or not the resurrection is a fact of history because to do so would be to deny one of the core tenets of the faith.  In other words, it is uttering heresy (sorry all, but that is the theological term for it...).  It would be akin to putting forth that there is no God or that Isis and Jesus were lovers or any other number of things.

I hope that I have summarized points well enough... as I said, feel free to correct me!  I don't think the two can come together because the starting points are so far apart... and then they diverge even more!