Is the ALPB Forum Online a safe space?

[peter_speckhard]

If we were able to follow God's will we wouldn't need any of the Torah. The proper godly behaviors would be written on our hearts...

Again, Lutheran is m 101 which obviously is not Stoffregenesque theology: We neither need nor follow Torah. The law IS written on our hearts.

I think this is misleading. The catechism includes Ex. 20:5-6 as what God says about these commandments. Clearly what we are teaching confirmands when using Luther's catechism is God's Law as written in Exodus, fulfilled in Christ, and also written on our hearts. As Christians we don't need the Torah to be saved but it is one of the means the Holy Spirit uses to convict us of sin and lead us to repentance.

[George Rahn]

If we were able to follow God's will we wouldn't need any of the Torah. The proper godly behaviors would be written on our hearts...

Again, Lutheran is m 101 which obviously is not Stoffregenesque theology: We neither need nor follow Torah. The law IS written on our hearts.

So why do we have all of our Confessions? Why did Luther explain the Ten Commandments? We seem to still require written documents because whatever is written on our hearts isn't enough.

Without the Torah and its teachings, Jesus' death/sacrifice would mean nothing.


Do you consider the Torah to be God's Word? Is the Bible (both testaments) the authority for our faith and life?


We don't NEED to follow the Torah, and neither did the Jews. Obedience never brought salvation. We should want to follow God's instructions (a better translation of torah than "law"), just like children should want to obey their parents.

There were Lutheran attempts to "catch" the substantive basis of the unique New Testament gospel located in Jesus Christ.  Wasn't P. Melanchthon's 1521 Loci an attempt to encapsulate that basis prior to the collection of documents in the Book of Concord?  The purpose was not to codify but to clarify what was being sourced in the New Testament.  These attempts leading to a body of teaching (corpus doctrinae) were to encapsulate what was necessary and sufficient for the public preaching of the living voice (viva vox evangelii). 

Also, M. Luther in both the small catechism (for the laity) as well in the large catechism (for educated clergy) placed the 10 commandments at the head of the catechism so people would ponder their own sinner-life in order to come to a state of repentance.  Primarily meant as a diagnostic tool, Luther's meaning to the 10 commandments were analogous to how Jesus re-interpreted the commandments in Matthew 5.  They were to drive the sinner-in-truth to forgiveness in Christ's death for others and so should lead the reader to part 2 of the catechism, ie. The Apostles Creed and Luther's meaning to each article there.

[Donald_Kirchner]

I don't think it's misleading at all. It's pure Lutheran teaching.

Perhaps, however, I should be more succinct. We don't derive the law from either Torah or Exodus or Deut. It's the law written on our hearts which we certainly can express in various writings.

It's a common misunderstanding even among the most-educated. I recall a spring seminar my 4th year at Sem StL. Voelz and Lessing, among others, were having an on-stage discussion. At one point, Reed Lessing said something about the OT ceremonial law no longer applying to us, implying that the OT moral law does. Voelz responded, "I don't think any of the OT law applies to us!" Lessing was silent. Later, at afternoon refreshments, I saw Gibbs and said, "Dr. Gibbs! Luther's Works, vol 35!" He immediately understood and said, "Absolutely! "How Christians Should Regard Moses. Jim was absolutely right!" Later, I saw Voelz and said "Nice expression, Dr. Voelz, of "How Christians Should Regard Moses." "It's gotta be that way," he replied.

It's a common misunderstanding. In 4th year Biblical Theology with Gibbs, someone mentioned something similar, about only the OT moral law and not the ceremonial law applying to us. Gibbs said, "Guys! We don't get the Ten Commandments from the OT. We get it from the law written on our hearts." He then implied something along the lines of, as 4th year students, about to be ordained, we should know that.

Not long ago, I cited and gave a link to Luther's sermon. It's online in several places. Perhaps if Brian read it he would have an answer to his questions which, after all, are just questions, not statements, that he already knows the answers, though they may not be Lutheran ones.

[Brian Stoffregen]

I don't think it's misleading at all. It's pure Lutheran teaching.

Perhaps, however, I should be more succinct. We don't derive the law from either Torah or Exodus or Deut. It's the law written on our hearts which we certainly can express in various writings.

Our hearts are still sinful. We can't trust them to be a reliable resource. Eve and Adam had sinless hearts, but that didn't stop them from disobeying God.

[Dan Fienen]

So, which is it? The written in the heart?

Jeremiah 31:33 (ESV)
³³ For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.


Romans 2:15 (ESV)
¹⁵ They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.


Or the revealed Law of God written down for our learning and reference?


Need it be either/or, can it not be both/and? Normal humans have a basic innate understanding of right and wrong, to which Paul points in Romans. That innate knowledge, however, has been blurred by sin and corrupted by self-justification and rationalizing what we want rather than what we ought. Thus, we need the written record given by God to remind and clarify what we should just know.

[Richard Johnson]

And several months ago a dear friend who is still in the ELCA extended to me an invitation to one of the ELCA FB groups for clergy. I wa on for about 72 hours. There is a dangerous place. It was abundantly clear that the requisite auto da fe would be carried out by anyone not keeping to the tenets of the one true faith. So anyone holding to the points I listed in my op would be torn to shreds by the bacchantes inhabiting that "safe space." 

Which is pretty much what it is like to be at any gathering of ELCA clergy.

My experience is similar.

[Rev. Edward Engelbrecht]

And several months ago a dear friend who is still in the ELCA extended to me an invitation to one of the ELCA FB groups for clergy. I wa on for about 72 hours. There is a dangerous place. It was abundantly clear that the requisite auto da fe would be carried out by anyone not keeping to the tenets of the one true faith. So anyone holding to the points I listed in my op would be torn to shreds by the bacchantes inhabiting that "safe space." 

Which is pretty much what it is like to be at any gathering of ELCA clergy.

My experience is similar.

Would turning down the rhetoric help? For example, staying away from titles like "bacchantes" or describing their actions as "auto da de"? Perhaps you did not use such expressions in the Facebook group. But do you see how such expressions might arouse angry responses?

I didn't know these struggles were still happening in the ELCA. I guess I thought that with so many people moved on to LCMC, NALC, and beyond, that would defuse things but it sounds like the intensity from ten years ago is still there or lately aroused. Lord, guard and guide the hearts of the faithful.