Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Aspect of Verbs in Koine Greek
Professor James Voelz was my teacher and author of Fundamental Greek Grammar (Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, 1993). Professor Voelz developed an innovative way of understanding aspect in Biblical Greek. This is particularly demonstrated with the imperfect tense. Most textbooks just say that imperfects are ongoing action and leave it at that. Dr. Voelz recognized through his Ph.D. work in Luke that this understanding does not fit all imperfects. He developed the additional term aspect to sort of supplement tense in categorizing verbs.
What is often called present tense he refers to as focus-on-connection, (FoC) that is, it conveys a meaning that emphasizes the link between the subject and the action that is referred to by the verb. Statements like, "I leave the check" are conveying a sense that I is connected to the action (leaving). Focus-on-connection is one type of aspect.
Another major type of aspect is focus-on-action (FoA). This aspect is more worried about the fact that the action is/was done than who did it. An example sentence would be "I see you."
As present tense is FoC, so aorist is FoA. Aorist is past time so it is focusing on the action that has been completed. It is the action that is important. Now, imperfect is FoC and is sort of a past time correspondent to present.
Professor Voelz lists 6 different connections conveyed by an imperfect. Context must help you resolve between these:
What is often called present tense he refers to as focus-on-connection, (FoC) that is, it conveys a meaning that emphasizes the link between the subject and the action that is referred to by the verb. Statements like, "I leave the check" are conveying a sense that I is connected to the action (leaving). Focus-on-connection is one type of aspect.
Another major type of aspect is focus-on-action (FoA). This aspect is more worried about the fact that the action is/was done than who did it. An example sentence would be "I see you."
As present tense is FoC, so aorist is FoA. Aorist is past time so it is focusing on the action that has been completed. It is the action that is important. Now, imperfect is FoC and is sort of a past time correspondent to present.
Professor Voelz lists 6 different connections conveyed by an imperfect. Context must help you resolve between these:
- Continuous, e.g. "I was loosing."
- Habitual, e.g. "I used to loose."
- Inceptive (beginning), e.g. "I began to loose."
- Conatative (attempting), e.g. "I tried to loose."
- Repetitive, e.g. "I repeatedly loosed."
- Emphatic, e.g. "I did loose."
Friday, October 02, 2009
Another prime example of Lutheranism being misunderstood
This St. Paul Pioneer Press article covers a Minneapolis congregation voting to split with the ELCA over their gay resolution recently passed. Here is my email to the writer:
David,
I am writing about your recent Pioneer Press article entitled "Minneapolis church splits with ELCA over gays". It appears from the article that you are not fully understanding Lutheranism in contrast to the popular ideas dominant in American Christianity.
You wrote: "...Wells and other opponents...place an emphasis on the law part, saying that their interpretation of Scripture holds that God views homosexuality as a sin. The resolution's proponents believe the emphasis should be on the gospel aspect. They generally believe that all humans have sinned and that 'self-righteousness is no longer possible,' said Johnson. That's a basic idea in theology -- God saves us; we do not." This has created a few false dichotomies. What Lutherans are committed to is the teaching that the things that we do and fail to do in our lives do not determine whether we are saved or not. We are and never were able to make ourselves righteous. The law of God shows us that we fail at that and therefore do not deserve to be saved. On the other hand, the gospel tells us what God has done for us, namely that Jesus died to take away our sins. Surely all people are sinners and for those who do not reject it, they have the free gift of salvation. These issues are not at dispute here. There is another question of how God would like us to live our lives. We know we are saved even though we sin. How can we live our lives in thankfulness for being saved? That is what God also tells us in the law. We cannot ever make ourselves good enough" by trying to live according to God's law and so we still depend on Christ's sacrifice. The law has these two roles of showing us our sins and guiding us in life. The gospel is always there telling us we are saved by Jesus sacrifice on the cross. These things are really not at dispute in this issue over gay acceptance. The primary issue is whether God's Word says that homosexual behavior is sinful. The variation is in which parts of the Bible are considered God's Word. God's Word is unchangable as God is, so, put very simply, one must deny that certain portions of the Bible are God's Word. The proponents of the resolution take the position that there is content of the Bible that consist of human statements that are limited to ancient cultures and do not apply today. They would not consider that to be God's Word.
I hopefully have explained myself well here. I would be happy to clarify further or otherwise reply if you wish. In the best of worlds, I would hope for an article to correct some of these misunderstandings of Lutheranism.
- Kevin Buchs; Pastor, Rochester, MN
Sunday, September 20, 2009
What are the teachings of Real Lutheran Fellowship?
I had someone who is a member or former member of Ascension Lutheran Church ask me about the teachings of Real Lutheran Fellowship, the congregation I have been called to serve. Here is my reply:
I'm sure you are aware that I ended my membership at Ascension a couple of years ago. The most important reason for doing so is that I felt that the teaching and preaching on Law and Gospel, their distinction and application, were impure and harmful. In our congregation, we would have teachings that are very familiar to WELS and Missouri Synod members of decades ago (but may be strange today). As indicated above, we would make these points clear in teaching and preaching:
1) God's law shows that we are sinners who cannot make ourselves better or overcome our sins. We deserve hell.
2) Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is able to save us from all sins and that is the only way to eternal life. Generally our teaching and preaching should end at this point, leaving us in the Gospel.
3) God wants us to live according to His law, but we will always fall short. Our works are as useless as filthy rags without the blood of Christ to cleanse them. Therefore, we, as Christians, do no do "good" works in and of ourselves but Christ must cleanse all we do.
Do feel free to shoot me back other questions you have. I'm happy to talk in person too. I'd also recommend our website, http://real-lutheran.info, but you probably already found that.
I'm sure you are aware that I ended my membership at Ascension a couple of years ago. The most important reason for doing so is that I felt that the teaching and preaching on Law and Gospel, their distinction and application, were impure and harmful. In our congregation, we would have teachings that are very familiar to WELS and Missouri Synod members of decades ago (but may be strange today). As indicated above, we would make these points clear in teaching and preaching:
1) God's law shows that we are sinners who cannot make ourselves better or overcome our sins. We deserve hell.
2) Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is able to save us from all sins and that is the only way to eternal life. Generally our teaching and preaching should end at this point, leaving us in the Gospel.
3) God wants us to live according to His law, but we will always fall short. Our works are as useless as filthy rags without the blood of Christ to cleanse them. Therefore, we, as Christians, do no do "good" works in and of ourselves but Christ must cleanse all we do.
Do feel free to shoot me back other questions you have. I'm happy to talk in person too. I'd also recommend our website, http://real-lutheran.info, but you probably already found that.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Letter to a relative with thoughts from their church newsletter
I was reading your church newsletter this morning. Your minister's letter I usually pay attention to and this one gave me cause to write to you. He said Christianity ("the faith") has two "words" to speak. One is a moral message, what I would call a Law message. The other message, he said, was one of unintended judgment. This he labels as "Good News" and says it is about the future of eternal life which he indicates is not for "the self-interested rich", but "the simple, hungry folks who want goodness and faithfulness to be the norm of life."
It is at that point that I would disagree. It actually sounds like the second word, the one of judgment is another word of Law. It is a message that you need to live your life in a certain way or you will not attain eternal life. I believe it is totally wrong to call that Good News. To me, the Good News is only good if it says that eternal life does not depend upon our works, how we life our lives. The Good News is never law or judgment. If it were, then it would not be good. Instead it is Gospel, that tells us all about Jesus and what He has done for us. Jesus died on the cross so that we might reach eternal life. Without Him doing that as your substitute all hope would be lost. All the works we might offer in order to obtain eternal life are not really good works. The way we live our life, being simple, hunger, wanting goodness and faithfulness, does nothing to help us gain eternal life. It all depends on Jesus. You will notice that your minister's letter never mentions Jesus, except incidentally, at the start, in the names of the books he is reading.
I hope that you keep your focus on Jesus and not depend on how you live life.
This subject made me think of a newspaper column I just submitted this week. I included it below.
Love, Kevin
--------------------------------------
Suggested Title: "What is the purpose of Christianity?"
What view of Christianity do you have? How do you answer these simple questions: Why does Christianity exist? What purpose does Christianity serve for you?
I regularly hear people say they believe the purpose of Christianity is to teach us how to live a good life. We can learn the rules for proper behavior, to make God happy. I would call this a "moral" purpose. With such a view, some people might read the Bible and see "blessed are the poor in spirit" and think that they should be poor so they can be blessed. Some critics of Christianity hold the view that Christianity should have a moral purpose, but it does poorly at that. They see the Bible is full of accounts of people who did not live good lives. So, if we were to read the Bible for a good moral example, these critics would say it is not a good example.
My view is different. I think that the purpose of Christianity is not to teach good behavior but to deal with the problem of my misbehaviors. I, like all those characters in the Bible, regularly have trouble following God's rules. It is a big problem called sin and it goes so far as to corrupt our very natures, so we have sinful natures. The solution to that problem comes from the one whose name is placed upon the religion, Jesus Christ. He comes not to condemn us but to free us from the burden of our constant failures. He comes to be our substitute, paying the price for our failures that we owe and thereby dying on the cross. Then He rose from death and lives on and that is that. He did what I could not do.
It is at that point that I would disagree. It actually sounds like the second word, the one of judgment is another word of Law. It is a message that you need to live your life in a certain way or you will not attain eternal life. I believe it is totally wrong to call that Good News. To me, the Good News is only good if it says that eternal life does not depend upon our works, how we life our lives. The Good News is never law or judgment. If it were, then it would not be good. Instead it is Gospel, that tells us all about Jesus and what He has done for us. Jesus died on the cross so that we might reach eternal life. Without Him doing that as your substitute all hope would be lost. All the works we might offer in order to obtain eternal life are not really good works. The way we live our life, being simple, hunger, wanting goodness and faithfulness, does nothing to help us gain eternal life. It all depends on Jesus. You will notice that your minister's letter never mentions Jesus, except incidentally, at the start, in the names of the books he is reading.
I hope that you keep your focus on Jesus and not depend on how you live life.
This subject made me think of a newspaper column I just submitted this week. I included it below.
Love, Kevin
--------------------------------------
Suggested Title: "What is the purpose of Christianity?"
What view of Christianity do you have? How do you answer these simple questions: Why does Christianity exist? What purpose does Christianity serve for you?
I regularly hear people say they believe the purpose of Christianity is to teach us how to live a good life. We can learn the rules for proper behavior, to make God happy. I would call this a "moral" purpose. With such a view, some people might read the Bible and see "blessed are the poor in spirit" and think that they should be poor so they can be blessed. Some critics of Christianity hold the view that Christianity should have a moral purpose, but it does poorly at that. They see the Bible is full of accounts of people who did not live good lives. So, if we were to read the Bible for a good moral example, these critics would say it is not a good example.
My view is different. I think that the purpose of Christianity is not to teach good behavior but to deal with the problem of my misbehaviors. I, like all those characters in the Bible, regularly have trouble following God's rules. It is a big problem called sin and it goes so far as to corrupt our very natures, so we have sinful natures. The solution to that problem comes from the one whose name is placed upon the religion, Jesus Christ. He comes not to condemn us but to free us from the burden of our constant failures. He comes to be our substitute, paying the price for our failures that we owe and thereby dying on the cross. Then He rose from death and lives on and that is that. He did what I could not do.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
to a friend uncertain about the afterlife
I've done some thinking about your statements about the afterlife. I'd like to share some thoughts. I'll try not to spew forth great volumes here, but please ask me if you want me to go into anything deeper. I'll number my thoughts because that is what I like to do when I'm creating a list that doesn't fit into a nice paragraph.
1) Our world/culture has programmed us to think in terms of science being the ultimate determinate of certainty. All a journalist has to say these days is write "scientists say ..." and people will ascent to what follows. With this programming, it is natural for us to feel doubt about things that can't be proven to us through "science". (I put science in quotes because I differentiate it from the Scientific Method, but that is another matter.)
2) Pushed on the point above, I would have to say that Satan is working to lead people to doubt eternal life and judgment. We should expect that we will be tempted to doubt. Certainly doubt is not that uncommon, but I would point out that we can be certain.
3) In a theistic orientation, not specifically Christian, it is apparent that nearly all people feel a sense of moral responsibility. This points us to the fact that there is someone outside of us to whom we are responsible for our actions. Yet, it is clear that judgment or justice for those actions does not occur in this life. It is this conflict between a sense of transcendent responsibility and a failure to see the justice effected in this life that leads us toward a future judgment to come beyond this life. We express our frequent sense of injustice when bad people triumph.
4) The Christian message is in its essence that we are morally responsible to the creator of the universe and we are utter failures in keeping our responsibilities toward Him. Our failures and even our orientation in opposition to the creator are wonderfully removed, not by anything we have done, but by the coming of Christ Jesus to suffer our punishment and rise again. He opens the door to eternal life for us. Our problem with our God is solved by our God. This is the gospel.
5) The gospel is communicated to us by the Bible, therefore I believe that the Bible in its entirety is God's word. It is the only source of such wonderful news. The Bible must be taken as a whole. To subtract a portion from being God's word only attempts to elevate ourselves into a position of being the selectors of what is divine and opens the door for Satan to provoke us to continue to subtract. This is where I ended up going starting in college years and was left with total atheism by 1985.
6) The promise of eternal life is an essential element of Christianity. Specific verses such as 1 Corthintians 15:12-19 focus in on this pointing out that without the resurrection we have nothing. In general, however, the teaching of eternal life stretches throughout scripture. We cannot omit it.
7) The very fact that you want to believe eternal life is true is an indication that you have a longing for something beyond this life. You were made for more than just this (Hebrew 13:14).
8) The Bible is the objective word of God that is our source for certainty. It does not depend upon us. The world might be teaching us to trust only in the world's ways but we have a divine way that grounds our confidence.
1) Our world/culture has programmed us to think in terms of science being the ultimate determinate of certainty. All a journalist has to say these days is write "scientists say ..." and people will ascent to what follows. With this programming, it is natural for us to feel doubt about things that can't be proven to us through "science". (I put science in quotes because I differentiate it from the Scientific Method, but that is another matter.)
2) Pushed on the point above, I would have to say that Satan is working to lead people to doubt eternal life and judgment. We should expect that we will be tempted to doubt. Certainly doubt is not that uncommon, but I would point out that we can be certain.
3) In a theistic orientation, not specifically Christian, it is apparent that nearly all people feel a sense of moral responsibility. This points us to the fact that there is someone outside of us to whom we are responsible for our actions. Yet, it is clear that judgment or justice for those actions does not occur in this life. It is this conflict between a sense of transcendent responsibility and a failure to see the justice effected in this life that leads us toward a future judgment to come beyond this life. We express our frequent sense of injustice when bad people triumph.
4) The Christian message is in its essence that we are morally responsible to the creator of the universe and we are utter failures in keeping our responsibilities toward Him. Our failures and even our orientation in opposition to the creator are wonderfully removed, not by anything we have done, but by the coming of Christ Jesus to suffer our punishment and rise again. He opens the door to eternal life for us. Our problem with our God is solved by our God. This is the gospel.
5) The gospel is communicated to us by the Bible, therefore I believe that the Bible in its entirety is God's word. It is the only source of such wonderful news. The Bible must be taken as a whole. To subtract a portion from being God's word only attempts to elevate ourselves into a position of being the selectors of what is divine and opens the door for Satan to provoke us to continue to subtract. This is where I ended up going starting in college years and was left with total atheism by 1985.
6) The promise of eternal life is an essential element of Christianity. Specific verses such as 1 Corthintians 15:12-19 focus in on this pointing out that without the resurrection we have nothing. In general, however, the teaching of eternal life stretches throughout scripture. We cannot omit it.
7) The very fact that you want to believe eternal life is true is an indication that you have a longing for something beyond this life. You were made for more than just this (Hebrew 13:14).
8) The Bible is the objective word of God that is our source for certainty. It does not depend upon us. The world might be teaching us to trust only in the world's ways but we have a divine way that grounds our confidence.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Overuse of the adjective "spiritual"
I'm taking an online course titled Dealing With Overload. In reading Lesson 1, this statement made me stop hard:
"These current developments are historically, experientially, mathematically, and spiritually unprecedented on a scale that staggers our thinking."
This may be applying the "spiritual" adjective to strictly an internal world. I suppose one of the things I'm disturbed with in the modern culture is the excessive use of an inward point of reference. So, does the above sentence use spiritual in that sense? The pace of the world is an unprecedented event for my inside spiritual world? Surely we get into personal world views here, but I would wish to state that the spiritual events of importance are all outside of us. Inside our spirituality is corrupt, because it keeps us focused on ourselves and how we feel and what is for me, etc. I'm holding the position that the greatest spritual event occurred about 2000 years ago and nothing can surpass that.
"These current developments are historically, experientially, mathematically, and spiritually unprecedented on a scale that staggers our thinking."
This may be applying the "spiritual" adjective to strictly an internal world. I suppose one of the things I'm disturbed with in the modern culture is the excessive use of an inward point of reference. So, does the above sentence use spiritual in that sense? The pace of the world is an unprecedented event for my inside spiritual world? Surely we get into personal world views here, but I would wish to state that the spiritual events of importance are all outside of us. Inside our spirituality is corrupt, because it keeps us focused on ourselves and how we feel and what is for me, etc. I'm holding the position that the greatest spritual event occurred about 2000 years ago and nothing can surpass that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
