Jaeger

JKD & Kali instructor. Evangelical Catholic Seminarian. 🦬

[RevDrLarson @larson_rev]

A very brief booklet to compliment my American Lutheran Churches chart. "A Brief Study of Lutheran Church Bodies in the US (2026)"
https://t.co/ujFihQiQqC

[Jaeger @Jaeger108]

@philthatremains Gen Beta just sounds dumb.

Greatest Generation
Silent Generation
Boomers
Millenials

Even Gen X is a descriptor.

Gen Beta doesn't tell you jack.

Just that you come after Gen Alpha...

[Jaeger @Jaeger108]

@RevDove What'd they get you for?

[Jaeger @Jaeger108]

@DrJordanBCooper Needs more Johann Wolfgang Jäger!

[Jaeger @Jaeger108]

@averagelutheran @taco_talks I'm actually disappointed that Trent gave him the time of day.

[Jaeger @Jaeger108]

@Arma__Christi @taco_talks This dude does not have the intellectual rigor to become a Marine.

[Jaeger @Jaeger108]

@kingofthehood89 @DrJordanBCooper @LutheranAnswers Why you staring at my attributes, man?

That's questionable.

[Jaeger @Jaeger108]

@howiedoit299187 @LutheranAnswers Absolutely false.

How horrible for your children that you believe this. You preach the Gospel of demons and place your faith in man, not in Christ.

[Jaeger @Jaeger108]

@howiedoit299187 @LutheranAnswers I've had children.

They are miserable rotten sinners in need of a Savior.

[Lutheran Answers @LutheranAnswers]

If this video of Martin Luther surfing the waters of Heaven gets more likes than your video then you have to delete your post.

[Jaeger @Jaeger108]

@LegalistsOfGor @windyneoneocon @revcjackson Not women. Girls. This is for high school boys looking to interact with girls their age, learn social skills, how to be a gentleman, find out what they are looking for in a spouse.

It's definitely not for you. Stay as far away from women and girls as possible.

[Jaeger @Jaeger108]

You skipped verse 16. Paul commands him to receive Onesimus 'no longer as a slave' but as a 'beloved brother.'

​If Philemon obeys, the chattel relationship ends.
​Paul acknowledges the Roman legal reality only to subvert it with a higher spiritual reality. You cannot own your brother.

Citing 1 Peter 2 is a self-own. Scripture commands victims to submit to unjust rulers (like Nero) and masters. That submission doesn't make Nero 'righteous' or the institution of slavery 'holy.'

​Jesus submitted to the Cross. That didn't make the Crucifixion a 'legitimate institution' mandated by God.

And if you're gonna cite Exodus 20, you might want to compare 21:16 to the chattel slavery trade of Rome and the US.

[Jaeger @Jaeger108]

Hess argues that ending slavery was a mistake born of Enlightenment Liberalism.

​If a slavery-free world is built on a lie, then Truth logically demands we dismantle it.
​Stop hiding behind permissible. Your theology frames a society without slaves as spiritually deficient.

Own the consequence.

[Jaeger @Jaeger108]

Bro, keep reading the very same chapter...

"Although God, who has the power when he wills, makes without a length of time, natures still produce in time their temporal motions. Hence, Scripture may have said, "And evening came and morning came, one day," as it is foreseen in reason that it ought to or can take place, not as it does take place in stretches of time. For he
who said "He who remains for eternity created all things at once," contemplated the very idea of the works in the Holy Spirit. (ME: He's citing Sirach here.) But in this book the account of the things that God made is broken down most conveniently as if in periods of time so that the very arrangement which weaker souls could not look upon with a firm gaze could be discerned as if by
these eyes, when it is set forth through the order of such a discourse."

According to Augustine, God created in an instant, and records periods of days in Genesis for "weak souls."

Have you even read the whole text?

No, of course you haven't.

You're just taking one line out of the context of the entire chapter.

I hope you don't exegete Scripture like this.

This isn't even up for debate. Augustine's theology of Creation has been discussed for centuries now. Luther even disagreed with him on this point.

You're no pastor, no Seminarian, and definitely not text scholar.

But let's keep going...

"Here, however, after reporting the deed that Scripture said was done and after the firmament was called heaven, it said, "And God saw that it was good." This change may have been made in order to avoid repetition, but in any case we have to hold to the words, "And God made all things at the same time." Why did he in the previous case first see that it is good, and afterward give it a name, while here he first gave it a name and afterwards l saw that it was good? Surely that difference indicates that there are no intervals of time in God's working, although they
are found in his works. Something is made earlier and later in accord with the intervals of time, and without these [intervals of time] there could not be a narrative account of what
God made, although God could make these things without them. "And evening came and morning came the second day." We have already dealt with this above, and I think the same reasons are valid here as well ."

St. Augustine keeps coming back to Sirach to justify his belief that God creates without intervals of time.

"And God said, 'Let there come to be the lights in the
firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth and to divide the day and the night and to be as signs for times and for days and for years. And let them be as a splendor in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' " On the fourth day the lights were made, of which it is said, "And to be for days." What then is the meaning of those three days passed without the lights? Why should these lights be "for days" if there could be days even without them? Is it that the motion of these lights permits men to distinguish more clearly
the expanse of time and intervals of duration? Or is this enumeration of days and nights more important for distinguishing the nature that was not made from those that were made, such that morning is mentioned because of the beauty of those things which were made, while evening [is mentioned] because
of privation?

St. Augustine explicitly questioned how there could be days before the Sun was created.

Stop projecting 20th-century fundamentalism onto the Church Fathers.

Even Answers in Genesis will tell you that you're wrong.

[Being Perceived Despiser @AvoidPerception]

Guys, please don’t buy this line about Augustine rejecting 6 day creation. He explicitly says we should understand them as 6 calendar days.

[Jaeger @Jaeger108]

Bro, keep reading the very same chapter...

"Although God, who has the power when he wills, makes without a length of time, natures still produce in time their temporal motions. Hence, Scripture may have said, "And evening came and morning came, one day," as it is foreseen in reason that it ought to or can take place, not as it does take place in stretches of time. For he
who said "He who remains for eternity created all things at once," contemplated the very idea of the works in the Holy Spirit. (ME: He's citing Sirach here.) But in this book the account of the things that God made is broken down most conveniently as if in periods of time so that the very arrangement which weaker souls could not look upon with a firm gaze could be discerned as if by
these eyes, when it is set forth through the order of such a discourse."

According to Augustine, God created in an instant, and records periods of days in Genesis for "weak souls."

Have you even read the whole text?

No, of course you haven't.

You're just taking one line out of the context of the entire chapter.

I hope you don't exegete Scripture like this.

This isn't even up for debate. Augustine's theology of Creation has been discussed for centuries now. Luther even disagreed with him on this point.

You're no pastor, no Seminarian, and definitely not text scholar.

But let's keep going...

"Here, however, after reporting the deed that Scripture said was done and after the firmament was called heaven, it said, "And God saw that it was good." This change may have been made in order to avoid repetition, but in any case we have to hold to the words, "And God made all things at the same time." Why did he in the previous case first see that it is good, and afterward give it a name, while here he first gave it a name and afterwards l saw that it was good? Surely that difference indicates that there are no intervals of time in God's working, although they
are found in his works. Something is made earlier and later in accord with the intervals of time, and without these [intervals of time] there could not be a narrative account of what
God made, although God could make these things without them. "And evening came and morning came the second day." We have already dealt with this above, and I think the same reasons are valid here as well ."

St. Augustine keeps coming back to Sirach to justify his belief that God creates without intervals of time.

"And God said, 'Let there come to be the lights in the
firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth and to divide the day and the night and to be as signs for times and for days and for years. And let them be as a splendor in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' " On the fourth day the lights were made, of which it is said, "And to be for days." What then is the meaning of those three days passed without the lights? Why should these lights be "for days" if there could be days even without them? Is it that the motion of these lights permits men to distinguish more clearly
the expanse of time and intervals of duration? Or is this enumeration of days and nights more important for distinguishing the nature that was not made from those that were made, such that morning is mentioned because of the beauty of those things which were made, while evening [is mentioned] because
of privation?

St. Augustine explicitly questioned how there could be days before the Sun was created.

Stop projecting 20th-century fundamentalism onto the Church Fathers.

Even Answers in Genesis will tell you that you're wrong.

[Jaeger @Jaeger108]

@lisavsworld My dad used to work with a lot of nuclear physicists. Men who were clearly beyond geniuses.

The kind of guy who would regularly dump the contents his coffee mug on his shirt when he looked at his watch.

[Jaeger @Jaeger108]

@AvoidPerception @DrJordanBCooper @JoelWebbon I'm sorry, I meant to type Philemon.

[Jaeger @Jaeger108]

"Held by the Church through all time"? You need to read the Church Fathers.

St. Augustine (arguably the most influential Western theologian) explicitly rejected the 6-day timeframe in The Literal Meaning of Genesis, arguing God created everything instantaneously. Was Augustine a "false teacher"?

Origen & Clement also did not hold to 6 literal days. The "24-hour" view has never been the universal test of orthodoxy you claim it is.

You are now accusing the LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) and the Synod in Convention of being incompetent for declaring fellowship with the AALC. You are putting your private judgment above the formal doctrinal review of your own church body.

Disagreeing on the length of "Yom" is not denying that God "meant the words He said." It's an issue of exegesis, not inerrancy.

You're not a pastor or Seminarian, are you?