Dan Selbo's election as NALC Bishop

[MaddogLutheran]

Why do you require James to say what you want it to say? 

Huh? I want James to say what James says. It isn't what I want nor what you want nor what Luther wants him to say. I'm arguing that we need to listen to James on James's terms. That begins by actually reading and trying to understand his words; not words someone else has written about James.

It is not the only book in the Bible.  With apologies to Pr. Rahn (and Luther), this is a terrible way to read the Bible, yet another form of proof-texting.

Which is exactly what you did with my words. You turned them into something I've never said. You gleaned a meaning that I never intended. God gave us 66 or 73 different books. I take that seriously. The Bible is a book of books; not one book. God could have let a version of the harmonized gospels win out; but didn't. lWe have four of them.


We really don't need Deuteronomy - a second telling of the law; but it's there. 1 & 2 Chronicles repeats much of the history in Samuels and Kings (but only for the southern kingdom). It's not necessary, but it's there. God gave us the similarities and differences in the two readings of the Ten Commandments (Exodus and Deuteronomy). God gave us the similarities and differences in the repeated histories. God gave us the similarities and differences in the Gospels and between the letters.


Walter Brueggemann notes that God's covenant with Abraham was unilateral and unconditional. The covenant with Moses was bilateral and conditional. God is bigger than any box we try and put God in. My "systematic" professors choose to teach theology as "biblical" theology, because neither the bible nor God fit neatly into a system. Each biblical writer has a different nuanced theology - and that's what God has given us.

The point I hear James making, because he's addressing an early Christian community, is that because a human is not God and cannot know what is in the heart of another, it's one of the few metrics we have to determine one's faith.  That's the reality in which most of the epistles were written, addressing real life issues arising in a community.  Not abstract doctrinal statements.  If there's a commentary on James which provides educated speculation as to the specific contemporary reason it was written, I'd be interested in someone sharing it.

Consider that James, the letter-writer, could be "James, the brother of our Lord" (Galatians 1:19) and leader of the church in Jerusalem; he would have seen the life Jesus lived growing up. What he would have seen was not some inner faith or unique connection with the Father; but the words and deeds that came from Jesus' throughout his life. His works were essential to his faith - not an add-on.


I also, somewhat, classify James as "wisdom literature," like Proverbs. It is not so much a theological treatise as presenting common sense ways of living our lives. Nearly everything James suggests is applicable to living a good Jewish life or good Christian life or even a good moral life. E.g., Watch what you say! Words are powerful.

Once again, this is mostly non-responsive, as you won't take responsibility for your prior post(s).  I already complemented Dr. Pearson for addressing this, with my own additions.  I wasn't attempting to put God in any box.  If anything my prior comments were the opposite of that.  You are shameless for introducing that into the conversation, implying that someone here has attempted to do that.  The conclusion of what you wrote I mostly agree with, FWIW.  But all that is beside the point I and others were trying to make.

As I referenced his prior observations on your behavior here, I will point out that once again you are making an appeal to absolute truth:  both in trying to respond to me and in the prior post on which I commented, even as you deny their is any such thing.  As you hide behind when challenged.

Your were the one who challenged others to find the particular quote in James.  Some of us are telling you, and you kind of acknowledge it in attempting to respond to me, that you cannot take the Book of James in isolation with the rest of scripture.   But you continue to try, maybe to score debating points.   

[Brian Stoffregen]

I came to this way of looking at scriptures by studying scriptures - not reading doctrines about scriptures. The attempt is to approach scriptures without any pre-conceived notions about it.

Pr. Stoffregen, of course you have a pre-conceived notion of how to approach scripture: that you can approach scripture without any pre-conceived notions.  This is one part of the mythology of modern science, including lingusitic science, and determines the proper way to interpret a complex text.  It operates on the pre-conceived notion that you are a neutral observer of the text, and can thus stand back from the text and analyze it without intrusive bias.  But there is no such thing as the "neutral observer."  There is a multitude of layers of pre-conceived notions embedded in everyone's approach to a text, including the Bible.  For instance, you have often referred to the importance of considering the historical and cultural environment in which the Bible was written, organized and established as authoritative.  That's a pre-conceived notion that governs your approach to the text.  You are also possessed of the pre-conceived notion that word studies are the key to discerning the "meaning" of the text.  From nearly everything you have written on this Forum, it is apparent that you adhere to an interpretive ideology that supplies a network of pre-conceived notions, on the basis of which you approach scripture.  Like everyone else, you stand in the midst of a hermeneutical theory as you read scripture; you do not stand outside of any pre-conceived notions.  You are not a "neutral observer."

I believe that there are elements of approaching a text that are as "neutral observers." One example of this is looking at the text itself. E.g., "the name Jesus Christ occurs twice in the book of James" or "χάρις never occurs in Matthew, but it occurs 25 times in Romans" (and the NRSV translates it "grace" 22 times; "thanks" 2 times, and "gift" once). Is there any bias in those observations? I believe that folks with an extremely liberal bias and those with an extreme traditional bias and all those in between come to exactly the same observations. That's where I believe we need to begin - with the text. What's actually in the text. What are the words that God has given us.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Thank you for this.  Seriously.  Someone needed to say this.  I will add the other problem with this approach, which should be obvious but unfortunately too many Protestants forget:  The Bible did not descend to the Church from Mount Sinai on engraved tablets.  The Bible was a creation of the Church, which we confess was mediated by the work of the Holy Spirit.  To ignore the wisdom the Church Fathers in favor of one's instantaneous intellectual notions is wrong.

I've stated often that the Bibles that we have, with all the differences, has come to us from God. It's also true that God normally speaks to us through human beings. The tablets didn't float down from heaven, but came down the mountain in the arms of Moses. It's also not clear how many of the 613 commands in the Torah were on the tablet. All of them? The Ten? We can ask, why do we have Deuteronomy - "second law" - a retelling of what happened before? (And D's theology is a bit different from P's.)

[Dave Likeness]

The retired pastor from Yuma said: "We really do not need Deuteronomy"

He perhaps does not realize the only OT books referred to more often in the N.T. than Deuteronomy
are Psalms, Isaiah, and Genesis.

For instance Jesus refers to Deut. 6:5, when asked "What is the greatest commandment?"
Jesus also refers to Deut. 6:13, Deut. 6:16, and Deut 8:3 when He defeats the devil's temptations
in the wilderness.

[readselerttoo]

I came to this way of looking at scriptures by studying scriptures - not reading doctrines about scriptures. The attempt is to approach scriptures without any pre-conceived notions about it.

Pr. Stoffregen, of course you have a pre-conceived notion of how to approach scripture: that you can approach scripture without any pre-conceived notions.  This is one part of the mythology of modern science, including lingusitic science, and determines the proper way to interpret a complex text.  It operates on the pre-conceived notion that you are a neutral observer of the text, and can thus stand back from the text and analyze it without intrusive bias.  But there is no such thing as the "neutral observer."  There is a multitude of layers of pre-conceived notions embedded in everyone's approach to a text, including the Bible.  For instance, you have often referred to the importance of considering the historical and cultural environment in which the Bible was written, organized and established as authoritative.  That's a pre-conceived notion that governs your approach to the text.  You are also possessed of the pre-conceived notion that word studies are the key to discerning the "meaning" of the text.  From nearly everything you have written on this Forum, it is apparent that you adhere to an interpretive ideology that supplies a network of pre-conceived notions, on the basis of which you approach scripture.  Like everyone else, you stand in the midst of a hermeneutical theory as you read scripture; you do not stand outside of any pre-conceived notions.  You are not a "neutral observer."

I believe that there are elements of approaching a text that are as "neutral observers." One example of this is looking at the text itself. E.g., "the name Jesus Christ occurs twice in the book of James" or "χάρις never occurs in Matthew, but it occurs 25 times in Romans" (and the NRSV translates it "grace" 22 times; "thanks" 2 times, and "gift" once). Is there any bias in those observations? I believe that folks with an extremely liberal bias and those with an extreme traditional bias and all those in between come to exactly the same observations. That's where I believe we need to begin - with the text. What's actually in the text. What are the words that God has given us.

Sorry.  There is no such "animal" as a neutral observer.  People always come to a text with bias and pre-judgment.  Whether there are more places in Matthew that the word grace appears than say Luke or Romans is not the point.  A word in context always produces a pre-judgment.  That is why Lutherans always return to the biblical text as both the font, the origin and endpoint of what God is saying.  Scripture always interprets scripture....always.

More clarity:  My prejudicial interpretation as the endpoint of the hermeneutical circle would impose on God's word my judgments as the final criterion.  That would usurp God's proper role as the final judge and incur wrath as it incurs alienation and rebellion toward our Creator.  That is one of the meanings of the fall narrative in Genesis.  Best to have Holy Scripture (properly defined) as the final criterion in all cases of interpretation.

[Brian Stoffregen]

The retired pastor from Yuma said: "We really do not need Deuteronomy"

He perhaps does not realize the only OT books referred to more often in the N.T. than Deuteronomy
are Psalms, Isaiah, and Genesis.

For instance Jesus refers to Deut. 6:5, when asked "What is the greatest commandment?"
Jesus also refers to Deut. 6:13, Deut. 6:16, and Deut 8:3 when He defeats the devil's temptations
in the wilderness.

True. Deuteronomy is a wonderful book; but in terms of history, it repeats what is found in Exodus-Numbers. That's why it's called "deutero-nomos" = "second law". It's a word the LXX uses in Deuteronomy 17:18 when the King writes a "second law".


Was Deuteronomy on the tablets that Moses brought down from Sinai; or a second law or copy of the law that was written later?

[Brian Stoffregen]

Sorry.  There is no such "animal" as a neutral observer.

We are not neutered animals.

People always come to a text with bias and pre-judgment. 

Yes, people come to a text with biases and pre-judgments. However, there are methods and tools that filter out such human biases, e.g., counting words in a document. People on all sides can agree that χάρις does not occur in the Gospel of Matthew. Biases show up when we start answering, "What does that mean?"

Whether there are more places in Matthew that the word grace appears than say Luke or Romans is not the point.

It is my point. It illustrates a method and procedure that is neutral. It makes no difference what one's biases or prejudices are in culling such data from a text.

A word in context always produces a pre-judgment. 

The meaning of a word requires context. The presence of the word does not. Because of context, the NRSV translates χάρις three different ways.

That is why Lutherans always return to the biblical text as both the font, the origin and endpoint of what God is saying. Scripture always interprets scripture....always.

And it is always a human with biases and prejudices that determines which Scriptures should be used to interpret Scriptures. It is not a neutral approach or method.

More clarity:  My prejudicial interpretation as the endpoint of the hermeneutical circle would impose on God's word my judgments as the final criterion.  That would usurp God's proper role as the final judge and incur wrath as it incurs alienation and rebellion toward our Creator.  That is one of the meanings of the fall narrative in Genesis.  Best to have Holy Scripture (properly defined) as the final criterion in all cases of interpretation.

First of all, I have never thought that my interpretation is the endpoint. I've used the oxymoronic phrase: "tentative absolutes." I'm sure about my interpretation until God might show me something else. I am not above God. At the same time, I believe that God inspires interpretations. They don't just come from my own head; but what God has revealed to me through the Word. Tools and procedures and resources, which I believe God has given us, help open up the Word for greater understanding.


Secondly, your parenthetic (properly defined) undercuts your whole argument. Someone (a biased, prejudicial human being, creates the proper definition). The human element cannot be removed from biblical interpretation. It cannot even be removed from biblical translations. Reading an English Bible already brings with it the biases and prejudices of the translators and publishers. Inasmuch as you agree with those biases, you will agree with the translation. If you disagree with them, you won't. I've been using the CEB since it came out in 2011. I think that it does one of the best jobs of capturing the meaning of the original words. This means that it doesn't always follow conventional translations: e.g., "Son of Man," becomes "the Human One." That is what the phrase means in Hebrew and Greek.

[readselerttoo]

Sorry.  There is no such "animal" as a neutral observer.

We are not neutered animals.

People always come to a text with bias and pre-judgment. 

Yes, people come to a text with biases and pre-judgments. However, there are methods and tools that filter out such human biases, e.g., counting words in a document. People on all sides can agree that χάρις does not occur in the Gospel of Matthew. Biases show up when we start answering, "What does that mean?"

Whether there are more places in Matthew that the word grace appears than say Luke or Romans is not the point.

It is my point. It illustrates a method and procedure that is neutral. It makes no difference what one's biases or prejudices are in culling such data from a text.

A word in context always produces a pre-judgment. 

The meaning of a word requires context. The presence of the word does not. Because of context, the NRSV translates χάρις three different ways.

That is why Lutherans always return to the biblical text as both the font, the origin and endpoint of what God is saying. Scripture always interprets scripture....always.

And it is always a human with biases and prejudices that determines which Scriptures should be used to interpret Scriptures. It is not a neutral approach or method.

More clarity:  My prejudicial interpretation as the endpoint of the hermeneutical circle would impose on God's word my judgments as the final criterion.  That would usurp God's proper role as the final judge and incur wrath as it incurs alienation and rebellion toward our Creator.  That is one of the meanings of the fall narrative in Genesis.  Best to have Holy Scripture (properly defined) as the final criterion in all cases of interpretation.

First of all, I have never thought that my interpretation is the endpoint. I've used the oxymoronic phrase: "tentative absolutes." I'm sure about my interpretation until God might show me something else. I am not above God. At the same time, I believe that God inspires interpretations. They don't just come from my own head; but what God has revealed to me through the Word. Tools and procedures and resources, which I believe God has given us, help open up the Word for greater understanding.


Secondly, your parenthetic (properly defined) undercuts your whole argument. Someone (a biased, prejudicial human being, creates the proper definition). The human element cannot be removed from biblical interpretation. It cannot even be removed from biblical translations. Reading an English Bible already brings with it the biases and prejudices of the translators and publishers. Inasmuch as you agree with those biases, you will agree with the translation. If you disagree with them, you won't. I've been using the CEB since it came out in 2011. I think that it does one of the best jobs of capturing the meaning of the original words. This means that it doesn't always follow conventional translations: e.g., "Son of Man," becomes "the Human One." That is what the phrase means in Hebrew and Greek.

Actually it undercuts yours.  Holy Scripture (ie. The Bible) is a collection of sacred writings.  Formula of Concord, Summary, Rule and Norm provides meaning to what we define as the scriptures. (ie. apostolic and prophetic scriptures of the OT and NT.)  Unlike you we read scriptures taking care to discover the apostolic and prophetic writings in that collection.  Some are antilegomena others are homologoumena using the analogia fidei as a standard of measurement.  Ancient method toward finding the Gospel so that it can be heard as the Gospel in the preaching and teaching.  It is right there in the Lutheran Confessions.

[peter_speckhard]

How does the old Christmas sermon go? You can't put God in a box, but God can and did, and He did it so you might know Him?

[pearson]

Yes, people come to a text with biases and pre-judgments. However, there are methods and tools that filter out such human biases, e.g., counting words in a document. People on all sides can agree that χάρις does not occur in the Gospel of Matthew. Biases show up when we start answering, "What does that mean?"

. . . . .

It is my point. It illustrates a method and procedure that is neutral. It makes no difference what one's biases or prejudices are in culling such data from a text.

. . . . .

The meaning of a word requires context. The presence of the word does not. Because of context, the NRSV translates χάρις three different ways.

. . . . .

And it is always a human with biases and prejudices that determines which Scriptures should be used to interpret Scriptures. It is not a neutral approach or method.

. . . . .

Secondly, your parenthetic (properly defined) undercuts your whole argument. Someone (a biased, prejudicial human being, creates the proper definition).

This is excellent.  So why don't you do this?

Tell us how to count the words in the document.  Don't tell us the "meaning" of those words.  That will entangle you (and us) in the works of a biased, prejudicial human being.  Thanks.

Tom Pearson

[Brian Stoffregen]

Actually it undercuts yours.  Holy Scripture (ie. The Bible) is a collection of sacred writings.

Actually, it's just a collection of writings that the Church declared sacred. As a Church, we aren't even sure which writings should be included. There's the Protestant Bible, the Roman Catholic Bible, and the Orthodox Bible. Besides differences in the number of books, the Orthodox rely on the LXX for their "Old Testament." The others rely on the Hebrew text.


Interestingly, the Masoretic Texts that are used for the Old Testament comes from the 7th-10th centuries; long after the LXX and the Syriac Peshitta.

Formula of Concord, Summary, Rule and Norm provides meaning to what we define as the scriptures. (ie. apostolic and prophetic scriptures of the OT and NT.)  Unlike you we read scriptures taking care to discover the apostolic and prophetic writings in that collection. Some are antilegomena others are homologoumena using the analogia fidei as a standard of measurement.  Ancient method toward finding the Gospel so that it can be heard as the Gospel in the preaching and teaching.  It is right there in the Lutheran Confessions.

Throughout high school, college, and seminary, it was stressed that we should use original sources, not secondary sources. I consider our Confessions secondary sources. They are important documents; but not the primary authority for the Church. The authority for the Christian Church and for Lutherans is scriptures. If what the Confessions teach about the truth of scriptures is true; it will be found by studying scriptures.


Long before there were the Confessions, preachers and teachers were finding and spreading the Gospel through the words of Scripture. Actually, perhaps the largest growth in the Christian church, in the third century, occurred before there was a final agreement on the books of the Bible.


Even after the Church authorized the books of the Bible, most people couldn't read. Publishing a book was very expensive. Even if they could read, they probably didn't have easy access to a Bible. The Gospel was a proclamation from one person to another.


Do you believe that the Gospel was rightly proclaimed before there were the Lutheran Confessions? Can it be rightly proclaimed by folks who have no idea what's in our Lutheran Confessions?

[Brian Stoffregen]

Yes, people come to a text with biases and pre-judgments. However, there are methods and tools that filter out such human biases, e.g., counting words in a document. People on all sides can agree that χάρις does not occur in the Gospel of Matthew. Biases show up when we start answering, "What does that mean?"

. . . . .

It is my point. It illustrates a method and procedure that is neutral. It makes no difference what one's biases or prejudices are in culling such data from a text.

. . . . .

The meaning of a word requires context. The presence of the word does not. Because of context, the NRSV translates χάρις three different ways.

. . . . .

And it is always a human with biases and prejudices that determines which Scriptures should be used to interpret Scriptures. It is not a neutral approach or method.

. . . . .

Secondly, your parenthetic (properly defined) undercuts your whole argument. Someone (a biased, prejudicial human being, creates the proper definition).

This is excellent.  So why don't you do this?

Tell us how to count the words in the document.  Don't tell us the "meaning" of those words.  That will entangle you (and us) in the works of a biased, prejudicial human being.  Thanks.

I have frequently given the frequency of a word in a document.


I have talked about the grammar that is used. Sometimes I give the two different ways of understanding the genitive: subjective or objective. "Love of God" can refer to God's love for us or to our love for God. "πίστις of Christ" can refer to our faith in Christ or to Christ's faith(fulness) towards us.


I don't think that offering standard options in translating is showing a bias. When deciding on one of the two, then one's biases can begin to show.

[Richard Johnson]

Throughout high school, college, and seminary, it was stressed that we should use original sources, not secondary sources. I consider our Confessions secondary sources. They are important documents; but not the primary authority for the Church.

They apparently didn't teach you the difference between primary and secondary sources.

[readselerttoo]

Actually it undercuts yours.  Holy Scripture (ie. The Bible) is a collection of sacred writings.

Actually, it's just a collection of writings that the Church declared sacred. As a Church, we aren't even sure which writings should be included. There's the Protestant Bible, the Roman Catholic Bible, and the Orthodox Bible. Besides differences in the number of books, the Orthodox rely on the LXX for their "Old Testament." The others rely on the Hebrew text.


Interestingly, the Masoretic Texts that are used for the Old Testament comes from the 7th-10th centuries; long after the LXX and the Syriac Peshitta.

Formula of Concord, Summary, Rule and Norm provides meaning to what we define as the scriptures. (ie. apostolic and prophetic scriptures of the OT and NT.)  Unlike you we read scriptures taking care to discover the apostolic and prophetic writings in that collection. Some are antilegomena others are homologoumena using the analogia fidei as a standard of measurement.  Ancient method toward finding the Gospel so that it can be heard as the Gospel in the preaching and teaching.  It is right there in the Lutheran Confessions.

Throughout high school, college, and seminary, it was stressed that we should use original sources, not secondary sources. I consider our Confessions secondary sources. They are important documents; but not the primary authority for the Church. The authority for the Christian Church and for Lutherans is scriptures. If what the Confessions teach about the truth of scriptures is true; it will be found by studying scriptures.


Long before there were the Confessions, preachers and teachers were finding and spreading the Gospel through the words of Scripture. Actually, perhaps the largest growth in the Christian church, in the third century, occurred before there was a final agreement on the books of the Bible.


Even after the Church authorized the books of the Bible, most people couldn't read. Publishing a book was very expensive. Even if they could read, they probably didn't have easy access to a Bible. The Gospel was a proclamation from one person to another.


Do you believe that the Gospel was rightly proclaimed before there were the Lutheran Confessions? Can it be rightly proclaimed by folks who have no idea what's in our Lutheran Confessions?

FWIW, there has never been a final agreement on the New Testament canon.  What we have in our Bibles was promulgated at the council of Trent for Roman Catholics.  For Lutherans the antilegomena were relegated to an appendix. 

Of course the Gospel was rightly proclaimed before the Lutheran confessions were established.  So what's the point?  FC Summary, Rule and Norm has a proper way to discuss method for discerning what is necessary and sufficient for which writings to be included in the biblical canon (hint: their apostolic and prophetic content, this would include Luther's "was Christum treibt".)

[J. Thomas Shelley]

If Lutherans have a compelling need to codify, confessionally, just which Scriptures are or are not canonical they should simply adopt the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion.