Author Topic: Nuclear Family  (Read 13232 times)

Steven W Bohler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3635
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear Family
« Reply #180 on: September 26, 2020, 04:17:23 PM »
Thank you as well ... perhaps the most valuable information this forum can impart is that the confession of of the Stoffregen/Austin coalition is considerably further left and much more progressive than most other ELCA forum members.  My apologies if I fail to acknowledge this fact when posts reference the ELCA.


Yes, to the left of most other ELCA forum members; but considered middle-of-the road within the whole ELCA. We are not the radical progressives that some others are.

If true, then I pity my ELCA relatives all the more.

B Hughes

  • Guest
Re: Nuclear Family
« Reply #181 on: September 26, 2020, 04:40:12 PM »

If true, then I pity my ELCA relatives all the more.

A church without boundaries is like a cell without a membrane; it will lysis and the osmotic pressure of the surrounding secular culture will lead to dissolution. It cannot be stopped and is now inevitable with Brian's church. Some fragments may remain as free floating subsets of the whole, but the organic unity will be gone within a generation. I think they know this.




Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12943
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Nuclear Family
« Reply #182 on: September 26, 2020, 04:56:34 PM »
Well, maybe our lysis is the lessening of the “dis-ease” inflicted by the presence of people who would hold us back and the osmotic pressure is doing for us what it does for water - filtering out some of the crap.
The church will change even more in the decades ahead and the ELCA and LCMS will survive, but in different forms. We will be glad, B Hughes and hyper-Missouri preservationists, that we said “no, thanks” (several times) to your efforts to “save” how you thought we should be.
Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. Now in Minnesota. Twice-vaccinated.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42405
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear Family
« Reply #183 on: September 26, 2020, 05:08:41 PM »
The Hebrew word ahad is used to describe the “love” that David and Jonathan had for each other.  The same Hebrew word is used to describe the love that all Israel had for David (see 1st Samuel 18:16).  The Hebrew word ahad in these and similar contexts has the meaning of the Greek word  philía which describes a dedicated brotherly or family love (unlike the Greek word érōs which describes romantic or sexual love).


I note that in the LXX ἀγαπάω, φιλέω, ἐράω and related words are all used for אהב. It can be used for friendship, for self-giving love, and for romantic or sexual love.
"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]

B Hughes

  • Guest
Re: Nuclear Family
« Reply #184 on: September 26, 2020, 05:10:53 PM »
Well, maybe our lysis is the lessening of the “dis-ease” inflicted by the presence of people who would hold us back and the osmotic pressure is doing for us what it does for water - filtering out some of the crap.
The church will change even more in the decades ahead and the ELCA and LCMS will survive, but in different forms. We will be glad, B Hughes and hyper-Missouri preservationists, that we said “no, thanks” (several times) to your efforts to “save” how you thought we should be.

I think Christ followers are not much interested in saving your church as that boat sailed in 2009. As Paul makes clear, "God gave them up ..."

The grief is wondering how many more young lives will be led away from Christ by your church. Even the faithful went into exile, such is the damage wrought by unfaithful leaders.

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12943
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Nuclear Family..
« Reply #185 on: September 26, 2020, 05:28:15 PM »
“....led away from Christ.” “...unfaithful leaders.”
Judge much, do you? And how do you think this judgment helps?
Why don’t you concentrate your energies on the plan that will save whatever church body you belong to now?
I’m sure they are eager for your help.
And just leave us alone.
Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. Now in Minnesota. Twice-vaccinated.

B Hughes

  • Guest
Re: Nuclear Family..
« Reply #186 on: September 26, 2020, 05:29:58 PM »
“....led away from Christ.” “...unfaithful leaders.”
Judge much, do you? And how do you think this judgment helps?
Why don’t you concentrate your energies on the plan that will save whatever church body you belong to now?
I’m sure they are eager for your help.
And just leave us alone.

Naaa Charles. You're my special project.

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12134
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear Family
« Reply #187 on: September 26, 2020, 05:34:46 PM »
Well, maybe our lysis is the lessening of the “dis-ease” inflicted by the presence of people who would hold us back and the osmotic pressure is doing for us what it does for water - filtering out some of the crap.
The church will change even more in the decades ahead and the ELCA and LCMS will survive, but in different forms. We will be glad, B Hughes and hyper-Missouri preservationists, that we said “no, thanks” (several times) to your efforts to “save” how you thought we should be.
Same to you fella. We parted company about half a century ago and been tracking in different trajectories. Many of us are glad that we said, "No thanks" to your efforts to save us from the horrors of traditional Lutheran theology.
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12943
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Nuclear Family
« Reply #188 on: September 26, 2020, 05:39:48 PM »
I actually thought, way back, Pastor Fienen, that we could help save each other. I remember a long dinner conversation with Arthur Carl Piepkorn and a couple of others on just what the different parts of Lutheranism in this country could give to each other.
But things happened.
Now, though our witness in both church bodies seems strong and energetic, our numbers are declining at about the same rate.
Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. Now in Minnesota. Twice-vaccinated.

readselerttoo

  • Guest
Re: Nuclear Family
« Reply #189 on: September 26, 2020, 06:38:24 PM »
The Hebrew word ahad is used to describe the “love” that David and Jonathan had for each other.  The same Hebrew word is used to describe the love that all Israel had for David (see 1st Samuel 18:16).  The Hebrew word ahad in these and similar contexts has the meaning of the Greek word  philía which describes a dedicated brotherly or family love (unlike the Greek word érōs which describes romantic or sexual love).


I note that in the LXX ἀγαπάω, φιλέω, ἐράω and related words are all used for אהב. It can be used for friendship, for self-giving love, and for romantic or sexual love.

So what?  I am not a Jew.  This history has no bearing on me.  If we really want to talk about love we should be looking to the New Testament not the Old, in this case.

Tom Eckstein

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 664
  • Tom Eckstein
    • View Profile
    • Concordia Lutheran Church, Jamestown, ND
Re: Nuclear Family
« Reply #190 on: September 26, 2020, 07:32:13 PM »
The Hebrew word ahad is used to describe the “love” that David and Jonathan had for each other.  The same Hebrew word is used to describe the love that all Israel had for David (see 1st Samuel 18:16).  The Hebrew word ahad in these and similar contexts has the meaning of the Greek word  philía which describes a dedicated brotherly or family love (unlike the Greek word érōs which describes romantic or sexual love).


I note that in the LXX ἀγαπάω, φιλέω, ἐράω and related words are all used for אהב. It can be used for friendship, for self-giving love, and for romantic or sexual love.

But my research that I shared with you makes it clear that אהב surely does NOT mean that David and Jonathan were same-sex lovers.  The only way you can get there is to totally ignore the immediate and wider context of the David and Jonathan event as well as engage in strained eisegesis.
I'm an LCMS Pastor in Jamestown, ND.

Tom Eckstein

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 664
  • Tom Eckstein
    • View Profile
    • Concordia Lutheran Church, Jamestown, ND
Re: Nuclear Family
« Reply #191 on: September 26, 2020, 07:58:56 PM »
Yet you keep pushing it as a homosexual relationship. I guess that indicates your bias in the matter. But gives me no reason to prefer you interpretation. Just because you prefer it and that would support your positions in no way obliges me or anyone else to agree or to take that as evidence of God's approval of homosexual relationships.


Nope. I'm not pushing it. I'm presenting it as a possibility. I'm not asking anyone to prefer it, just recognize that it is something that others have presented as a possibility.


The possibility exists with the centurion and his "boy" in the Gospels. The language could indicate a homosexual relationship.

Brian, in light of your comment about the Roman centurion and his "pais" having a same-sex relationship that Jesus either tolerated or affirmed is yet another bit of nonsense eisegesis from you.  Below is my response to this erroneous notion:


Some have attempted to find evidence of Jesus affirming a male homosexual relationship by suggesting that the Roman centurion and his servant were homosexual lovers.   Why would they make this assumption?  The reason is that there is historical evidence showing that some (but not all!) Roman men who were slave owners would sometimes have sex with their slaves – both male and female.   They then conclude that the Roman centurion mentioned in Matthew and Luke must have had a homosexual relationship with his servant – whom Luke says his master “valued highly” (Luke 7:2).  Since Jesus does not condemn this supposed homosexual relationship (in fact, He doesn’t even mention it!), they argue, Jesus was thereby affirming their homosexual behavior.  Is this a reasonable interpretation of this event as recorded in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10?  Hardly!  Many have exposed the ridiculous nature of this strained interpretation.     I will now give the following brief responses to this revisionist argument.
     
     First, even though there is evidence that some Roman slave owners had sex with their male and female slaves, not ALL of them did.  Therefore, it would be wrong to assume that the Roman centurion mentioned in Matthew and Luke had sex with his servant when there is no clear evidence that such a sexual relationship existed.  In their book The Children Are Free, Miner and Connoley make a lot of the fact that the Roman centurion refers to his servant as his pais   – a Greek word that could, in some contexts, refer to a male slave who was a homosexual partner with his master. 
     
     But even Miner and Connoley admit that this is not the only meaning of the word pais , which can also mean “son” or just plain “servant” (without any sexual connotations).  In fact, within the New Testament the Greek word pais is best understood as being synonymous with another Greek word doulos – which also means “slave” or “servant” (without any sexual connotations whatsoever).  Finally, as we will see in the following paragraphs, the context in Matthew chapter 8 and Luke chapter 7 makes it very clear that the word pais could NOT have any homosexual meaning whatsoever in that situation.
     
     Second, the cultural context in which we find this Roman centurion actually makes it quite impossible that he had a homosexual relationship with his servant.  For example, in Luke chapter 7 we read:  “The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant.  When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with him, ‘This man deserves to have you do this, because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue.’” (Luke 7:4-5)  Here we see that the Jews adore and respect this Gentile centurion.  They even say that he deserves to have Jesus heal his servant.  Why would the Jews say this about a Roman centurion when they usually despised most Gentiles – especially the Romans who were often oppressing them and whose various sinful behaviors (such as idolatry and homosexuality) were an abomination to them?  The answer is that this Roman centurion was very likely a “God-fearer” (the Greek word for “God-fearer” being  phoboumenos ).
     
     In Acts chapter 10 we read about another Roman centurion whom Luke explicitly refers to as a God-fearer ( phoboumenos – see Acts 10:2).  When we consider how the Jews in Luke chapter 7 adored the Roman centurion in their community, and when we note that the Roman centurion loved the Jewish nation and built the synagogue in Capernaum, the obvious conclusion is that this Roman centurion was a God-fearer.
     
     Now, what did it mean for a Gentile man to be a God-fearer? In his commentary on the book of Acts, F. F. Bruce writes the following about the Roman centurion in Acts chapter 10:  “It is further important to observe that Cornelius was one of those Gentiles who are commonly classed as ‘God-fearers’ … Many Gentiles in those days, while not prepared to enter this Jewish community as full proselytes, were attracted by the simple monotheism of Jewish synagogue worship and by the ethical standard of the Jewish way of life.  Some of them attended synagogue and were tolerably conversant with the prayers and Scripture lessons, which they heard read in the Greek version; some observed with more or less scrupulosity such distinctive Jewish practices as Sabbath observance and abstinence from certain kinds of food.”   
     
     What we know of these Gentile God-fearers is that they at the very least worshipped only the God of Israel and submitted to all their moral laws – including their sexual laws!   As F. F. Bruce noted, not only did the God-fearers submit to the ethical standards of the Jews, but some of these God-fearers would even observe many of the Jewish ceremonial laws.  Therefore, if the Roman centurion in Luke chapter 7 were a God-fearer (and the evidence suggests that he was!), then he would NOT have been involved in homosexual behavior because this was clearly condemned in the Old Testament Scriptures.    In fact, if the Jews had known that this Roman centurion was involved in homosexual behavior with his slave, they would have been greatly offended.  But Luke tells us that they thought highly of this centurion and believed he deserved Jesus’ help. 
     
     In their book The Children Are Free, Miner and Connoley suggest that the Jewish crowd knew about the centurion’s homosexual behavior and despised the fact that Jesus was willing to help such a man.   But this view is in direct conflict with what Scripture teaches us about the event!  The Jews respected this Roman centurion because he loved their nation (and therefore, also loved their moral laws – including their prohibition of homosexuality!) and they pleaded with Jesus to help him!  Miner and Connoley did not read the Scriptures very carefully.

     Even pro-gay author Daniel Helminiak, who would love to find evidence for Jesus affirming homosexual behavior, admits that there is not much proof for the idea that the Roman centurion in Matthew chapter 8 and Luke chapter 7 had a homosexual relationship with his servant.  On pages 128-129 of his book What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality he writes:  “…what was the relationship between the centurion and the servant?  There is no way of knowing for certain.  The historical evidence is scanty.”  To say the least!
     
     The third reason we should not accept the idea that Jesus affirmed a homosexual relationship between the Roman centurion and his servant is that Jesus would have been opposed to even consensual homosexual behavior based on the witness of the Old Testament as well as His own teaching in Matthew 19:1ff.   Therefore, if this Roman centurion had been involved in homosexual behavior, Jesus would have called him to repentance just as He did with the tax collectors, prostitutes and other sinners.  The fact that Jesus said nothing about this centurion’s homosexual behavior with his slave is strong evidence that such homosexual behavior did NOT exist! 
     
     In their book The Children Are Free, Miner and Connoley write:  “We must let the word of God speak for itself, even if it leads us to an uncomfortable destination.”   I find this sentence to be ironic. If Miner and Connoley were actually willing to let the Word of God “speak for itself” on the issue of homosexuality they would quickly realize that God clearly condemns even consensual homosexual behavior as being sinful.   This might be an “uncomfortable destination” for those who wish to impose their affirmation of homosexual behavior on the pages of Holy Scripture, but the Holy Spirit moves us to face the Truth of God’s Word even when it exposes our cherished sins.  But even more, the Truth of God’s Word points us to Christ through whom we have complete forgiveness and new life with God!

     

« Last Edit: September 26, 2020, 08:01:08 PM by Tom Eckstein »
I'm an LCMS Pastor in Jamestown, ND.

James J Eivan

  • Guest
Re: Nuclear Family
« Reply #192 on: September 26, 2020, 08:12:50 PM »
Oh yes ... he really blessed the relationship with Bathsheba ... the result of that illicit relationship ... a child that died at a rather early age.

Yes, the child becomes a type of Christ. He dies for the sins of others. The prescribed punishment for committing adultery was the death of both parties. God was gracious to David and Bathsheba by allowing another to die in their place. (This certainly doesn't mean that the parents didn't grieve the loss of their son.)
And this foolishness is supported by which Bible passages .. supported by which church fathers ... or is this wild speculation from the as yet unsupported, undocumented, unwritten, unpublished Stoffregen-esque faux commentary?


Apparently this forum is used to float new unfounded radical ‘doctrines’ in vain hopes of promoting his faux commentary.

John_Hannah

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 5218
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear Family
« Reply #193 on: September 26, 2020, 09:28:07 PM »
I actually thought, way back, Pastor Fienen, that we could help save each other. I remember a long dinner conversation with Arthur Carl Piepkorn and a couple of others on just what the different parts of Lutheranism in this country could give to each other.
But things happened.
Now, though our witness in both church bodies seems strong and energetic, our numbers are declining at about the same rate.

"I remember a long dinner conversation with Arthur Carl Piepkorn"

That would have been intriguing. My instinct, having known him, is that he would deplore the divided Lutheran family we witness today.

Missourians condemn all others, failing to recognize that our support of a conservative confessional position would have contributed decisively to a strong united American Lutheranism. We Missourians who insisted on retreating to our past glory are partially at fault for the weakened Lutheran bodies we see today. Of course those in the former ALC and LCA (and AELC) who all along coveted the glories of the mainline are just as guilty. Now in our hard fought for division we are all delighted but greatly diminished, close to the point of collapse.

Missouri "self claiming confessionalists" would do well to study Piepkorn and try to contort their positions with his well known highly conservative stance on the Lutheran Confessions. Neuhaus spoke of the, "Perverted Piepkorn Party" with appropriate derision.

Peace, JOHN
Pr. JOHN HANNAH, STS

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42405
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear Family
« Reply #194 on: September 27, 2020, 03:53:11 AM »
Well, maybe our lysis is the lessening of the “dis-ease” inflicted by the presence of people who would hold us back and the osmotic pressure is doing for us what it does for water - filtering out some of the crap.
The church will change even more in the decades ahead and the ELCA and LCMS will survive, but in different forms. We will be glad, B Hughes and hyper-Missouri preservationists, that we said “no, thanks” (several times) to your efforts to “save” how you thought we should be.
Same to you fella. We parted company about half a century ago and been tracking in different trajectories. Many of us are glad that we said, "No thanks" to your efforts to save us from the horrors of traditional Lutheran theology.


Some of us believe that we have recaptured the essence of traditional Lutheran theology by removing it from much of its cultural trappings.
"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]