Strength In Numbers....?

[PACKY]

I understand that there are Idelogical differences between the synods, yet we are all Lutherans first and foremost, Why not have one universal Lutheran church, why not have the synods meet and work out one universal doctrine and teaching and understanding, as well as one universal stance for the church to take on issues, It seems that in the times we live in the church would be better off to have strength in numbers and to be able to pool the resources of all the synods...do you think this will ever take place? and do you think this is a good idea?

[Protoevangel]

The one universal doctrine and teaching and understanding already exists. It is called the Book of Concord.

The ELCA denies the infallability of the Bible, which Luther upheld, which Lutherans historically have understood, and which the Book of Concord necessarily assumes. Because of that denial, the ELCA is making changes that are in direct conflict with God's revealed will. The more orthoodox synods will not and should not accept the ELCA while they hold to this position. If however, the Confessional core wihin the ELCA can begin to make their voice heard, the ELCA may still recover it's Lutheran heritage. I pray this is the case.


I will let others speak for the differences between other synods.

[Willy]

This kind of ecumenical dialogue is taking place, just not within Lutheranism. The ELCA has developed a full communion relationship with the Reformed Church in America, the Presb. Church USA, the United Church of Christ, the Moravian Church, the Episcopal Church. This has opened so many doors to cooperation, even to the sharing of clergy. This kind of cooperation will not be found among the Lutheran synods as long as the Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin remain closed off from many of the insights of modernity. Frankly, many of us ELCA people are much closer to Presbyterians, UCC people, Episcopalians than we are to our brother and sister Lutherans in other synods. It's a sad but real reality. The world views are just so different. I don't see that changing in the near future. Truthfully, a common reaction to change (to modernity) is a withdrawal into the ways and thought of the past. American fundmaentalism had its origins in the 19th century reaction to Darwin's evolutionary theory. I suspect that the current embodiments of American fundamentalism and Lutheran fundamentalism (Missouri and Wisconsin synods) are reactions to modernity (scientific discovery, growth in so-called "moral relativism). I suspect that there will always be reactions to change, and such reactions will prevent the kind of Christian unity you and all of us long for.

[Protoevangel]

...the insights of modernity.
Oh, that’s a rich one! I’m going to have to use that one! Heehee! The “insights” of modernity! ROFLMAO! Quick, someone tell Jesus that he is no longer in vogue, we are "modernized" now! Wo Hoo! :thumbsup:

...Frankly, many of us ELCA people are much closer to Presbyterians, UCC people, Episcopalians than we are to our brother and sister Lutherans in other synods.
Agreed. I just wish you (the “many ELCA people” you are talking about) would just let Lutherans be Lutherans, and go be whoever you are!

[Willy]

a bit cynical. I'm as Lutheran as Lutheran can be. Context matters. We don't live in a world in which people believe that the world is flat or that it is penetrated by evil forces that determine the shape of life. That doesn't mean we are better, but that we are in a different place. That difference requires us to speak of the eternal in a different way. Frankly, if we don't, the faith will die.

[PACKY]

I see it like this, The faith is one: LUTHERAN. however the synods have torn and stretched the faith into whatever direction they wanted, maybe people in power of these synods need to read over Luthers works and sit down and figure out a way to get all synods back into one. the synods are all moving down their own paths.. and this scares me..I am a lutheran teh synod should not matter as much as it does in days of late. just my two cents........what do you think?

[lakesidelady]

According to your last post, it seems like you are saying that the people in the different synods are following their own wishes, right? and that if we looked at Luther's Works and compromised, we could agree on something. do I have you right?

I am LCMS and we must be in total agreement with the verbally inspired, infallable, inerrant Word of God. and the Book of Concord accurately states what the Bible says. How can we compromise the Truth? Do we dare? Or do we say that certain things are not as important as what the Bible says it is?

[PACKY]

According to your last post, it seems like you are saying that the people in the different synods are following their own wishes, right? and that if we looked at Luther's Works and compromised, we could agree on something. do I have you right?

I am LCMS and we must be in total agreement with the verbally inspired, infallable, inerrant Word of God. and the Book of Concord accurately states what the Bible says. How can we compromise the Truth? Do we dare? Or do we say that certain things are not as important as what the Bible says it is?

this is my point, there is only One god and his word ( the bible) is infallable so says the book of concord....I dont want compromse on the truth ( gods word/the bible) i want every synod to recognize the bible as the one infallable truthful word of god, we are all Lutherans and therefore should be following the book of concord and its teachings that the bible is Gods written word to the world, with that being said there shouldnt be that much disagreement as to have teh effect to create different synods in one faith....

[lakesidelady]

We all SHOULD be true to the Bible and the Book of Concord, true! But you are wishing for something that isn't true in every synod!

[PACKY]

We all SHOULD be true to the Bible and the Book of Concord, true! But you are wishing for something that isn't true in every synod!

Thats why we need to join bacj together and work for the common goal of following the bible and the book of concord..

[Protoevangel]

Thats why we need to join bacj together and work for the common goal of following the bible and the book of concord..Only problem is willy and his ilk, the're too 'insightful' and 'modern' for your backwards ideas of truth and infallibility.

[Protoevangel]

I'm as Lutheran as Lutheran can be.
Ooo, now I'm convinced. Your next comments really drive that home! But I guess in this age of relativism, anyone can call themselves anything they want, can't thay?

A Lutheran is a person who believes, teaches and confesses the truths of God's Word as they are summarized and confessed in the Book of Concord.

What is a Lutheran in your little world, willy?


Context matters. We don't live in a world in which people believe that the world is flat or that it is penetrated by evil forces that determine the shape of life. That doesn't mean we are better, but that we are in a different place. That difference requires us to speak of the eternal in a different way. Frankly, if we don't, the faith will die.
Thank you for your insight, Mr. Spong, or is it... mini-me?

Please make clear to me, how must we now speak of the eternal? Teach us, oh Enlightened One, so that our faith does not die!

I’m serious willy, I want to hear what you have to say. Admitedly, I'm using a lot of sarcasm in my post, because I honestly think you're full of yourself, but one thing I constantly pray is that I will always be open to Truth, whatever that Truth may be and however that Truth is presented. If what you have is Truth, then don't be shy, don't be scared... Let the light of your Truth overflow and destroy any darkness in it's path willy. Let me have it.

[SPALATIN]

I understand that there are Idelogical differences between the synods, yet we are all Lutherans first and foremost, Why not have one universal Lutheran church, why not have the synods meet and work out one universal doctrine and teaching and understanding, as well as one universal stance for the church to take on issues, It seems that in the times we live in the church would be better off to have strength in numbers and to be able to pool the resources of all the synods...do you think this will ever take place? and do you think this is a good idea?

What a nice thought. However, if we did that will the ELCA give up ordaining women and take the vote away from them? Will the LCMS take the vote away from the women? Will the WELS and ELS become more liberal and give women the vote and ordain them to preach? These are just some of the issues that we part on, however, there are other issues to which we have disagreement as well. Unfortunately these differences will always stand in our way to becoming one synod and that is because of our stubborn sinful ways.

[PACKY]

What a nice thought. However, if we did that will the ELCA give up ordaining women and take the vote away from them? Will the LCMS take the vote away from the women? Will the WELS and ELS become more liberal and give women the vote and ordain them to preach? These are just some of the issues that we part on, however, there are other issues to which we have disagreement as well. Unfortunately these differences will always stand in our way to becoming one synod and that is because of our stubborn sinful ways.

The sad thing is that we recognize that it is our sinful ways that prevent us from coming togetherand forming one unified church of Lutherans under the teachings of God and Christ and under the doctrine of the book of concord.
However it is also a good thing that we know what is dividing us and causing us to sin and therefore we can work to change and better ourselves and therefore better our denomination and faith, there are so many hearts that need to be lead to christ there are so many sould that need to be saved, we should worry about bringing these people into teh church instead of worrying about what makes us different...I know that thsi is BEYOND wishful thinking..
if it is gods will it will be done.

[Willy]

Ooo, now I'm convinced. Your next comments really drive that home! But I guess in this age of relativism, anyone can call themselves anything they want, can't thay?

A Lutheran is a person who believes, teaches and confesses the truths of God's Word as they are summarized and confessed in the Book of Concord.

What is a Lutheran in your little world, willy?



Thank you for your insight, Mr. Spong, or is it... mini-me?

Please make clear to me, how must we now speak of the eternal? Teach us, oh Enlightened One, so that our faith does not die!

I’m serious willy, I want to hear what you have to say. Admitedly, I'm using a lot of sarcasm in my post, because I honestly think you're full of yourself, but one thing I constantly pray is that I will always be open to Truth, whatever that Truth may be and however that Truth is presented. If what you have is Truth, then don't be shy, don't be scared... Let the light of your Truth overflow and destroy any darkness in it's path willy. Let me have it.
Frankly, it is hard, if not impossible, to enter into a conversation with those who are so dismissive. We are just in different thought worlds. To be a Lutheran, from my view, is to insist that the church rises and falls on the proclamation of justiifcation by grace through faith. to be a Lutheran is to insist that God is experienced most fully in the cross of Jesus Christ where all of our attempts to define truth on the basis of all of our propositions, theories, good deeds, holy books are crucified. To be a Lutheran is to embrace the absolute wonderful state of ambiguity, where truth is not defined by anything we do but truly by the which is absolute, the gospel of God. To be a Lutheran is to insist that the God experience is not something dependent upon us, our thoughts or feelings, but the reality of God always coming to us through means (traditionally labeled "word and sacrament"). To be Lutheran is not to be confined to a certain way of speaking the gospel or singing about it. Luther was the master of contextualizing the proclamation (e.g. the mass in German, the NT in German). To be a Lutheran is to know that the church is always is the process of being reformed.

[SemStudent08]

Frankly, it is hard, if not impossible, to enter into a conversation with those who are so dismissive. We are just in different thought worlds. To be a Lutheran, from my view, is to insist that the church rises and falls on the proclamation of justiifcation by grace through faith. to be a Lutheran is to insist that God is experienced most fully in the cross of Jesus Christ where all of our attempts to define truth on the basis of all of our propositions, theories, good deeds, holy books are crucified. To be a Lutheran is to embrace the absolute wonderful state of ambiguity, where truth is not defined by anything we do but truly by the which is absolute, the gospel of God. To be a Lutheran is to insist that the God experience is not something dependent upon us, our thoughts or feelings, but the reality of God always coming to us through means (traditionally labeled "word and sacrament"). To be Lutheran is not to be confined to a certain way of speaking the gospel or singing about it. Luther was the master of contextualizing the proclamation (e.g. the mass in German, the NT in German). To be a Lutheran is to know that the church is always is the process of being reformed.
:amen:

VERY well put! I'd give you rep but I'm not cool enough to have my rep hits count. :)

[AngelusSax]

Oh, that’s a rich one! I’m going to have to use that one! Heehee! The “insights” of modernity! ROFLMAO! Quick, someone tell Jesus that he is no longer in vogue, we are "modernized" now! Wo Hoo! :thumbsup:

Would that be the Jesus that never told women to be silent or that they were not to teach because of their gender? I think He's still in vogue. :)

[alabaster jar]

Willy, you sound Lutheran to me. You covered the basics. I have wondered why, under that sort of banner you outlined, the synods just couldn't offer autonomy to churches if they kept some semblance of 'Lutheranism.' There does seem to be strength in 'numbers.'

[Qoheleth]

Frankly, it is hard, if not impossible, to enter into a conversation with those who are so dismissive. We are just in different thought worlds. To be a Lutheran, from my view, is to insist that the church rises and falls on the proclamation of justiifcation by grace through faith. to be a Lutheran is to insist that God is experienced most fully in the cross of Jesus Christ where all of our attempts to define truth on the basis of all of our propositions, theories, good deeds, holy books are crucified. To be a Lutheran is to embrace the absolute wonderful state of ambiguity, where truth is not defined by anything we do but truly by the which is absolute, the gospel of God. To be a Lutheran is to insist that the God experience is not something dependent upon us, our thoughts or feelings, but the reality of God always coming to us through means (traditionally labeled "word and sacrament"). To be Lutheran is not to be confined to a certain way of speaking the gospel or singing about it. Luther was the master of contextualizing the proclamation (e.g. the mass in German, the NT in German). To be a Lutheran is to know that the church is always is the process of being reformed.

Very defined and scholastic and compartmentalized. How about Love, trust, communion, living a godly life, cooperating with the Holy Spirit and His gifts, worshipping in reverence, seeking to ease the suffering of our fellow man and so on...

Q

[Willy]

Very defined and scholastic and compartmentalized. How about Love, trust, communion, living a godly life, cooperating with the Holy Spirit and His gifts, worshipping in reverence, seeking to ease the suffering of our fellow man and so on...

Q
I like those things, too, although I am not quite sure what "cooperating with the Holy Spirit" means.

[Protoevangel]

Frankly, it is hard, if not impossible, to enter into a conversation with those who are so dismissive.
Nonsense. Come on, if what you have is really the Truth, then it should be your pleasure to share it. The early church, and even many today in persecuted countries risk the loss of property, family and even their own lives as a penalty for sharing their faith. What do you have to worry about here? Strongly worded disagreement or a sarcastic comment at worst? You will certianly not be alone, there is much a number of us here disagree on many issues. We discuss, debate, and even argue sometimes, but most of us have actually become stronger friends because of our willingness to discuss these issues, and still drop the arguments in favor of fellowship when the time arises.

I am asking for the Truth Willy. I’m not being dismissive, if what you have is Truth; then with all my heart, I want to learn it.

We are just in different thought worlds.
I would have to agree with you here Willy. I do everything I can to recognize my preconceptions and make them submissive to God and His Word. Jesus Christ is the ultimate authority in every aspect of my life, over my philosophy, my reason and my argumentation, not only in the end, but at the very beginning. I fully confess that this is not always the case. I am hostile to God in my heart, as are we all. I recognize this and repent before you and before God.

When confronted with temptation from the Devil in the desert, Jesus constantly responded with the words, “It is written...” In fact, that is one of Jesus’ most common statements. “You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men” Jesus told the Pharisees. The Bible is the beginning and end of all doctrine, not “modernity”.

I do not see the same attempt to make the Word of God master over your wisdom in your posts over the past year or so Willy. Thank God that our Justification is not based on this, or I know that I would fail miserably as well. I am not being self-important here, because I still recognize and have to fight off the urge to impose myself over Scripture. This is the goal of orthodoxy, however, to place the Word... all of the Word, in a state of preeminence above ourselves.

If my perception of your posts and intent is off, I am ready for correction and will gladly apologize and embrace you as a brother in Christ. I will not, however, embrace any teaching that is at odds with the clear revealed Word of God, which my Lord and Maser, the Christ of God, Jesus held in such high esteem.

To be a Lutheran, from my view, is to insist that the church rises and falls on the proclamation of justiifcation by grace through faith. to be a Lutheran is to insist that God is experienced most fully in the cross of Jesus Christ where all of our attempts to define truth on the basis of all of our propositions, theories, good deeds, holy books are crucified. To be a Lutheran is to embrace the absolute wonderful state of ambiguity, where truth is not defined by anything we do but truly by the which is absolute, the gospel of God. To be a Lutheran is to insist that the God experience is not something dependent upon us, our thoughts or feelings, but the reality of God always coming to us through means (traditionally labeled "word and sacrament"). To be Lutheran is not to be confined to a certain way of speaking the gospel or singing about it. Luther was the master of contextualizing the proclamation (e.g. the mass in German, the NT in German). To be a Lutheran is to know that the church is always is the process of being reformed.Martin Luther never made any changes that were not necessary to bring the teaching of the church in line with Biblical Truth. The Gospel is for all to hear and understand, ergo Luther ended the abuses of keeping the Mass and Bible only in the language of the elite. Show just one change Luther instituted simply for the sake of “modernity”, ignoring the clear Biblical witness.

The Lutheran faith has always been a confessional faith. Martin Luther, in his comments on Galatians 1:9 bears this point out. "Here Paul subordinates himself, an angel from heaven, teachers on earth, and any other masters of all to sacred Scripture. This queen must rule, and everyone must obey, and be subject to her. The pope, Luther, Augustine, Paul, an angel from heaven — these should not be masters, judges, or arbiters but only witnesses, disciples, and confessors of Scripture. Nor should doctrine be taught or heard in the church except the pure Word of God. Otherwise, let the teachers and hearers be accursed along with their doctrine."

I have been hard on you, and I am sorry. I would genuinely like to begin a dialog with you. Even if we do not come to an agreement on these issues, perhaps we will at least understand each other a little better.

[Qoheleth]

I like those things, too, although I am not quite sure what "cooperating with the Holy Spirit" means.

True sanctification and free participation in Christ, i.e., Theosis.

Q

[Willy]

Nonsense. Come on, if what you have is really the Truth, then it should be your pleasure to share it. The early church, and even many today in persecuted countries risk the loss of property, family and even their own lives as a penalty for sharing their faith. What do you have to worry about here? Strongly worded disagreement or a sarcastic comment at worst? You will certianly not be alone, there is much a number of us here disagree on many issues. We discuss, debate, and even argue sometimes, but most of us have actually become stronger friends because of our willingness to discuss these issues, and still drop the arguments in favor of fellowship when the time arises.

I am asking for the Truth Willy. I’m not being dismissive, if what you have is Truth; then with all my heart, I want to learn it.


I would have to agree with you here Willy. I do everything I can to recognize my preconceptions and make them submissive to God and His Word. Jesus Christ is the ultimate authority in every aspect of my life, over my philosophy, my reason and my argumentation, not only in the end, but at the very beginning. I fully confess that this is not always the case. I am hostile to God in my heart, as are we all. I recognize this and repent before you and before God.

When confronted with temptation from the Devil in the desert, Jesus constantly responded with the words, “It is written...” In fact, that is one of Jesus’ most common statements. “You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men” Jesus told the Pharisees. The Bible is the beginning and end of all doctrine, not “modernity”.

I do not see the same attempt to make the Word of God master over your wisdom in your posts over the past year or so Willy. Thank God that our Justification is not based on this, or I know that I would fail miserably as well. I am not being self-important here, because I still recognize and have to fight off the urge to impose myself over Scripture. This is the goal of orthodoxy, however, to place the Word... all of the Word, in a state of preeminence above ourselves.

If my perception of your posts and intent is off, I am ready for correction and will gladly apologize and embrace you as a brother in Christ. I will not, however, embrace any teaching that is at odds with the clear revealed Word of God, which my Lord and Maser, the Christ of God, Jesus held in such high esteem.

Martin Luther never made any changes that were not necessary to bring the teaching of the church in line with Biblical Truth. The Gospel is for all to hear and understand, ergo Luther ended the abuses of keeping the Mass and Bible only in the language of the elite. Show just one change Luther instituted simply for the sake of “modernity”, ignoring the clear Biblical witness.

The Lutheran faith has always been a confessional faith. Martin Luther, in his comments on Galatians 1:9 bears this point out. "Here Paul subordinates himself, an angel from heaven, teachers on earth, and any other masters of all to sacred Scripture. This queen must rule, and everyone must obey, and be subject to her. The pope, Luther, Augustine, Paul, an angel from heaven — these should not be masters, judges, or arbiters but only witnesses, disciples, and confessors of Scripture. Nor should doctrine be taught or heard in the church except the pure Word of God. Otherwise, let the teachers and hearers be accursed along with their doctrine."

I have been hard on you, and I am sorry. I would genuinely like to begin a dialog with you. Even if we do not come to an agreement on these issues, perhaps we will at least understand each other a little better.
I certainly appreciate your mind and your commitment to the Biblical word. I, too, have a deep commitment to the Biblical word and to the Lutheran confessions, but probably in a different way than you. For me, the Bible is the church's book. It is the source and norm for our preaching and teaching. What matters most in the church is that it is read, preached upon, and taught. It is, as Luther argued, a living word. It speaks in new and fresh ways to every generation. I am amazed at how that word moves and transforms me, even if I have read it or preached upon it many, many times before. It has power. And that power is not a power that confines me to the insights of the first century or the sixteenth century. It is so powerful that it speaks to my own context. It is vital to understand the context of the Biblical word, as well as the confessional word. It is vital to understand our contexts. For me, the Gospel is the truth that needs to be spoken to every generation. The way it is talked about will not be the same in every generation. Actually, the Bible reflects that contextualization. All four gospels are addressing different audiences. And each of them, convinced of the absolute significance of the Christ event, speaks the truth of that event in different ways. Mark's audience is very different from John's audience. And so they speak the gospel story in radically different ways, articulating the meaning of the cross, for example, in very distinct ways. Mark sees Jesus as the abandoned Son of God. John sees him as the victorious Lamb. Luke sees him as a faithful witness (martyr). Matthew sees him as a new Mose, a new Rabbi, and the initiator of the end. They have different audiences to address. Our audience is very different from Luther's or the first century audience. Do we all have the same needs? Yes. But do we understand the world in the same way? No. The Bible is not a flat word that can be imposed on every generation and situation. It is a living word that calls people from false loyalties into a trusting relationship with the Source and Goal of all that is. Such a relationship is dynamic. It demands a willingness to embrace ambiguity and trust nonetheless.

[Protoevangel]

I certainly appreciate your mind and your commitment to the Biblical word. I, too, have a deep commitment to the Biblical word and to the Lutheran confessions, but probably in a different way than you. For me, the Bible is the church's book. It is the source and norm for our preaching and teaching.
This is good. I appreciate your commitment to the Bible and Confessions as well. What now has to be defined is what is meant by “source and norm”, especially when the word of the world is overshadowing the Word of God in our church.

What matters most in the church is that it is read, preached upon, and taught. It is, as Luther argued, a living word. It speaks in new and fresh ways to every generation.
Teaches in “new and fresh ways” (to each heart), I would agree with, but not teaching a “new morality” or “new ways that contradict the old” (which you have not stated, but is certianly a problem in our church organization as a whole - ELCA). God does not change, and when we change, it is our responsibility to constrain that change within the boundaries set forth for us within the Word of God.

I am amazed at how that word moves and transforms me, even if I have read it or preached upon it many, many times before. It has power. And that power is not a power that confines me to the insights of the first century or the sixteenth century. It is so powerful that it speaks to my own context. It is vital to understand the context of the Biblical word, as well as the confessional word. It is vital to understand our contexts.
Is it ok to kill? What is the context? If the person is innocent, then of course it is not ok. If on the other hand, to save the life of the innocent that this person has a gun up to, then the context of how we understand the teaching changes. This concept of context I understand. But you are talking in vague generalities. Can you talk about the changed context we are experiencing, and how the historic, orthodox understandings are no longer valid in these cases?

For me, the Gospel is the truth that needs to be spoken to every generation. The way it is talked about will not be the same in every generation.
:amen: Absolutely! However, the Law cannot be dismissed. Without the Law to condemn us, there is no need for the Gospel to rescue us.

Actually, the Bible reflects that contextualization. All four gospels are addressing different audiences. And each of them, convinced of the absolute significance of the Christ event, speaks the truth of that event in different ways. Mark's audience is very different from John's audience. And so they speak the gospel story in radically different ways, articulating the meaning of the cross, for example, in very distinct ways. Mark sees Jesus as the abandoned Son of God. John sees him as the victorious Lamb. Luke sees him as a faithful witness (martyr). Matthew sees him as a new Mose, a new Rabbi, and the initiator of the end. They have different audiences to address.
For all of the differences, they all have a strong common theme. If we concentrate entirely on vagueness and obsess only on the context, we miss the common thread running throughout all four Gosples and the entire Bible, for that matter.


Our audience is very different from Luther's or the first century audience. Do we all have the same needs? Yes. But do we understand the world in the same way? No. The Bible is not a flat word that can be imposed on every generation and situation. It is a living word that calls people from false loyalties into a trusting relationship with the Source and Goal of all that is. Such a relationship is dynamic. It demands a willingness to embrace ambiguity and trust nonetheless.
There is no ambiguity in the Law. We are all guilty and deserving of Hell and damnation. There is no ambiguity in the Gospel. I am saved by God’s Grace, for Christ’s sake, and not for any righteousness of my own, which I have none of anyway. If these are taught rightly and strongly, either in the first, sixteenth or twenty-fourth centuries, then the Truth is being taught. There is enough ambiguity left in life, even when the Law and Gospel are rightly taught unambiguously. This is the business of the church, to teach what is unambiguous, what has been brought to light. What is ambiguous Is indefinite, is vague, is confusing, is equivocal, is of the darkness and the world.

"But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."
- 2 Timothy 3:13-15

If I misunderstand what you are trying to get at with your comment about embracing ambiguity, please let me know. Let’s not let this communication die off just yet. I think this may be the perfect thread for this conversation, with the whole thread about bringing Lutherans back together and all. How would we do this without discussing these issues?

May we both grow in our understanding of all that God wills for us to learn and teach. Amen

[Qoheleth]

What now has to be defined is what is meant by “source and norm”, especially when the word of the world is overshadowing the Word of God in our church.




Holy Scripture is the norma normans-- the ruling rule, and the
Confessions are the norma normata-- the ruled rule. The latter decides whether the person has clearly understood the true doctrines of Scripture. We don't play one off against the other.


Our Lutheran Confessions are a clear exposition of the Word of God and the ruled rule, the ruling rule being Holy Scripture


Q

[pastel]

I'm LCMS and I'm staying LCMS...not going anywhere! Say, I got eyestrain reading this thread, and it was worth every minute of it. :eek:

[Jim47]

Being called a Christian or a Lutheran shouldn't be any differance, but unfortunately there is. Mans sinful pride just won't accept God's Word as spoken, We are always trying to change it and make it fit into our little world of sin and self centerdness.

Isn't this much like having a closet God? You can just take Him down and make use of Him when ever you are need or when the rare occasion happens that we actually agree with what God has taught us?

Here in lies the differance bewteen the synods and as long as there are Lutherans that don't bend at the knee and confess God alone is Lord and right in every situation then there will never be unity between what "we call" Lutherans.

Sad to say there are many that have wondered so far from the truthes of God's Word I'm not sure why they want to bare the name of Christ or His servant Luther. :cry:

[PACKY]

Being called a Christian or a Lutheran shouldn't be any differance, but unfortunately there is. Mans sinful pride just won't accept God's Word as spoken, We are always trying to change it and make it fit into our little world of sin and self centerdness.

Isn't this much like having a closet God? You can just take Him down and make use of Him when ever you are need or when the rare occasion happens that we actually agree with what God has taught us?

Here in lies the differance bewteen the synods and as long as there are Lutherans that don't bend at the knee and confess God alone is Lord and right in every situation then there will never be unity between what "we call" Lutherans.

Sad to say there are many that have wondered so far from the truthes of God's Word I'm not sure why they want to bare the name of Christ or His servant Luther. :cry:


this is a oustanding post, Gods word is just that, I cant beleive that there are so many denominations of the ''christian faith", why not just follow christ and his teachings? why add a worldy man made spin to it?

[CrossWiseMag]

this is a oustanding post, Gods word is just that, I cant beleive that there are so many denominations of the ''christian faith", why not just follow christ and his teachings? why add a worldy man made spin to it?

I agree wholeheartedly. That's why I'm Lutheran. :)

[Protoevangel]

Hey Willy,

I hope our part in this conversation is not over! I think we were just beginning to finally communicate. I am really trying to see your side here, and not just be offhandedly dismissive. If you are still willing to talk with me, my last reply was in post #24 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=15099943&postcount=24) above.

[Willy]

Lots to say in response to your post. I believe that the Jesus event is so powerful that it speaks to every generation. How we describe that event will change. For example, some of the early church used the notion of sacrifice for sins as the way to describe the meaning of the cross. That made sense to the people of Biblical days. They, because many of them had Jewish roots, knew what sacrificing for sins was all about. That doesn't make as much sense to us today, although it seems that much contemporary worship music is fixated on this image. ("It should have been me, etc...) We don't offer sacrifices. So as we are trying to make sense of the mystery that in the cross God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself we will use different language and imagery. Likewise, we might speak of all the symobls of the faith in different ways. The symobls still have power to speak but in different ways. AS for ethical issues, what seems to me to be your primary concern, I think we still live in light of an accountability to God. To speak the truth does not mean lightening up the requirement. For me, there is no doubt but that we have a deep calling to advocate for the poor, defend life, care for God's creation, live lives that reflect deep commitment to the integrity and holiness of relationships. My approach doesn't mean that all behavior is somehow okay. It's not. Sometimes, though, our biggest struggles reflect great ambiguity. That ambiguity cannot be wished away by appeal to some simple ethical injunctions. Sometimes people will reach entirely different decisions on the same matter and still reflect ethical integrity. Luther's concept of "bold sinning" helps us here. Sometimes we are face with bad or worse. Sometimes the most ethically appropriate thing to do is to choose bad, to sin boldly, trusting that God indeed is gracious in the midst of miserable options. (I know you are not going to like this, but I think issues related to end of life decision making and abortion connect here.)

[Protoevangel]

Lots to say in response to your post. I believe that the Jesus event is so powerful that it speaks to every generation. How we describe that event will change. For example, some of the early church used the notion of sacrifice for sins as the way to describe the meaning of the cross. That made sense to the people of Biblical days. They, because many of them had Jewish roots, knew what sacrificing for sins was all about. That doesn't make as much sense to us today, although it seems that much contemporary worship music is fixated on this image. ("It should have been me, etc...) We don't offer sacrifices. So as we are trying to make sense of the mystery that in the cross God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself we will use different language and imagery.
The Jesus event? That certainly seems to be a flippant manner to refer to God Himself coming to meet Humanity, to live the perfect life in perfect obedience, and to give Himself as a sacrifice to save us from ourselves. I also completely fail to see your point about "sacrifice" being nonsensical. I certainly am not a lifelong Christian; I lived my life, up until about four years ago as an agnostic; neither knowing nor particularly caring about God. I was not even a particularly good student; mainly C’s and D’s in High School. When God made himself real in my life, however, the concept of Jesus’ Sacrifice was not a problem; there is no intellectual issue with using the language, it is an issue of man imposing his will and language over God and His Word. Perhaps that is because I am not of the intellectual elite? Is it the smart ones who cannot accept God on His own terms? Sounds rather Gnostic to me.

Likewise, we might speak of all the symobls of the faith in different ways. The symobls still have power to speak but in different ways.
Here comes the evidence of my lowbrow intelligence... I don’t think I’m following you here. What symbols have power, but only in your new language and ways? How exactly are the old ways deficient? Don’t get me wrong, I am not against using new ways and language to describe what has been sufficient for 2000 years, it’s just that I think that the one who wants to change has the burden of proof that the change is necessary, and that the changes are still completely and absolutely in accordance with the church catholic’s teaching throughout history. Otherwise, I still do not question the sincerity of those teachings, but I do question why those who teach these new innovations are so doggedly holding on to the title Lutheran. If you want to change the language of the faith, then go ahead and do so, but don’t lie to the people by pretending you are in accordance with the church of history. Unless, of course, I am missing something, which is what I am trying to determine here.

AS for ethical issues, what seems to me to be your primary concern, I think we still live in light of an accountability to God. To speak the truth does not mean lightening up the requirement. For me, there is no doubt but that we have a deep calling to advocate for the poor, defend life, care for God's creation, live lives that reflect deep commitment to the integrity and holiness of relationships.
You missed my whole point. My main concern is that the church teaches the Truth, plain and simple. Ethics are certainly part of that Truth, but my focus here is to understand the doctrinal, linguistic and delivery innovations you are proposing. If the language or manner of delivery of Biblical Truth must be changed, well and good, let us do so posthaste. But, make no bones but that the overwhelming burden of proof lays on the shoulders of those who propose these innovations. Pushing that burden of proof back onto those who hold to the traditional position is logically flawed.

Instead of talking in such general and vague ways, please just let us know what exactly must be changed, and exactly why these changes are necessary.

My approach doesn't mean that all behavior is somehow okay. It's not. Sometimes, though, our biggest struggles reflect great ambiguity. That ambiguity cannot be wished away by appeal to some simple ethical injunctions. Sometimes people will reach entirely different decisions on the same matter and still reflect ethical integrity. Luther's concept of "bold sinning" helps us here. Sometimes we are face with bad or worse. Sometimes the most ethically appropriate thing to do is to choose bad, to sin boldly, trusting that God indeed is gracious in the midst of miserable options. (I know you are not going to like this, but I think issues related to end of life decision making and abortion connect here.)
What is ambiguous in ethics? Either an action is right or it is wrong or it is indifferent. If it is wrong, there is forgiveness for those in Christ. That fact does not make the action any less wrong, and the church should not pretend that it does.

To abort a child is always wrong. To withhold food and water from someone, forcing them to an early death is always wrong. There is no ambiguity there. Let us not hide this fact, and tell people their sin is not sin. Look to your own quote above from Martin Luther, and teach that sin is sin. Do not hide your sins, Martin told Melanchthon. Sin boldly, but believe in Christ even more boldly. No ambiguity. I really want to understand where this ambiguity you talk of comes from.


Sorry if this comes across as a little austere, I meant to take my time this weekend to reply. After fixing up a couple of PC’s, doing yard work and homework, I didn’t have any time to do it. I typed this up at work, mostly on my lunch, and therefore may be more abrasive and thoughtless than if I had taken my time with it. I am still interested in your thoughts. Please do try to be a bit less vague, however. Remember, I am a simple man and appreciate words that point to definite ideas.

[Willy]

My sister would have died if she didn't abort her baby. My mother in-law could have lived longer if we had placed a feeding tube in her. She's had a devastating disease for almost 20 years. She was non-responsive for the last couple of years. Not putting a feeding tube in her was the most loving thing we could do. My sister's abortion was the right albeit tragic thing to do. Many people whom I have counseled have divorced. It was tragic, but the right thing to do. All of these decisions are made within the context of a broken (sinful) world. Life an't easy sometimes. My son who is 17 and many his age are not preoccupied with how awful they are. "It should have been me" theology when it comes to the cross doesn't speak to them. But when we speak of despair, the sense that life seems not to make sense and that it seems not to have meaning they resonate. The cross speaks to their situation, as it does to the situation of Luther who was preoccupied with his unworthiness, but in different ways. By the way, both are still living within the reality of sin, but sin has taken different shapes and thus the articulation of the gospel must take different shapes. It's not about innovation. Actually, this is very orthodox. The church has always tried to articulate the gospel in light of its context. I am glad that you are a new Christian. That is very exciting. There is no better place to be. The faith means everything to me. The only encouragement I would have for you would be for you to realize that there is always more about the faith to be revealed. We all grow in our understandings. My understandings today are very different for me than what they were when I was in high school. Same faith. Different shape.

[Protoevangel]

Willy,

I had a response almost complete earlier this week, but somehow I lost it. No way am I going to rewrite all that I had, but hopefully I will touch on all the most important points I was trying to make.


My sister would have died if she didn't abort her baby. My sister's abortion was the right albeit tragic thing to do.
Was this an ectopic pregnancy? If so then what she had was not really an abortion, because it wasn’t a pregnancy that had any possibility of coming to term. The only other possibility with an ectopic pregnancy is the death of both the mother and the child. Perhaps I have gotten somewhat sloppy in my terminology, talking about induced abortion of a viable pregnancy, while obviously the term itself has a much wider application. In othyer situations (non-ectopic), the responsibility is still just as clear. Life must be the first and overriding priority. If there is a possibility to save both lives, that is the only "right" choice. If the child must die to avoid both dying, then the responsible choice is clear. Even so, I strongly object to using the word “right” in relation to any action that is taken to end the life of any person. Understandable, permissible, responsible, even sensible, but never “right.


My mother in-law could have lived longer if we had placed a feeding tube in her. She's had a devastating disease for almost 20 years. She was non-responsive for the last couple of years. Not putting a feeding tube in her was the most loving thing we could do.
What you are describing is euthanasia, which is nothing other than murder. Whatever your motivation (and I absolutely believe you were motivated by love and mercy), you have committed or at least condoned murder. If you have had no guilt, no repentance regarding this, than I truly pity you. If on the other hand you have contrition, I would sincerely suggest you pay attention to it and what it is telling you. Forgiveness is already there, just don’t deny that you need it.


Many people whom I have counseled have divorced. It was tragic, but the right thing to do. All of these decisions are made within the context of a broken (sinful) world. Life an't easy sometimes.
It is so sad when a minister who is entrusted to uphold God’s Word so easily repudiates it.

"Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."
- Jesus

It may very well be that the woman (possibly even the man), needs to leave an abusive relationship. But when you council that the divorce is “right”, you are sending the wrong message.


My son who is 17 and many his age are not preoccupied with how awful they are. "It should have been me" theology when it comes to the cross doesn't speak to them. But when we speak of despair, the sense that life seems not to make sense and that it seems not to have meaning they resonate. The cross speaks to their situation, as it does to the situation of Luther who was preoccupied with his unworthiness, but in different ways. By the way, both are still living within the reality of sin, but sin has taken different shapes and thus the articulation of the gospel must take different shapes.
Jesus let those who would not listen to Him go.

"But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions." (Matt 19:22)

"From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. Then Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also want to go away?" (John 6:66-67)

Are you so much wiser than our Lord, that you can change the message that He stuck to so vehemently? What you speak of here is nothing more or less than what would resonate with any pagan, any lost soul. With those Jesus let go their own way. What you are speaking of is a generic religion, not Christianity. It should have been me, it should have been you. WE are the sinners, not Him! The Bible is full, front to back, with the Christian message, the message of the substituanry atonement, which you seem to be throwing out. Christ was the scapegoat, the unblemished lamb that took the punishment that you and I deserve! How can you say that is meaningless? That is what the ENTIRE Old Testament foreshadows to, and the New Testament declares complete!


It's not about innovation. Actually, this is very orthodox. The church has always tried to articulate the gospel in light of its context. I am glad that you are a new Christian. That is very exciting. There is no better place to be. The faith means everything to me. The only encouragement I would have for you would be for you to realize that there is always more about the faith to be revealed. We all grow in our understandings. My understandings today are very different for me than what they were when I was in high school. Same faith. Different shape.
Still more generalities. Let’s not get too far off-track here. Let’s get back to the question I have posed a couple of times, which you keep wiggling out of answering, Where, how, and why exactly does the faith need to change to keep itself from dying? What exactly is this different “way” in which we must speak of “the eternal”?


Again, sorry for the delay in responding. Things are just so busy that when I lost my previous reply, I just gave up for a few days. Here are, I hope, all of the main points I was trying to make in my longer reply.

[Willy]

Oh my. To be called a murderer is amazing. Life doesn't fit into our neat little boxes, even if you wish it did. I don't need to defend what we did with my mother in-law. Her life was miserable. She has had no life for many years. To allow her to die was loving and gracious. Tragic, not easy. Of course. Real life happens. Real people deal with real situations. They cannot be dealt easily with general principles that we just impose on them. If you only knew of what you speak. This obviously will get nowhere. The kind of universe you live in is not mine and mine is not yours. I wish that were different. But it isn't. We all need to be where we are for a variety of reasons.For some, life is just easier when it's put in a little box. It fits our psychologcial as well as our spiritual needs. Just know that a whole lot of people don't think like you. And we are Christians, too.

[Protoevangel]

Oh my. To be called a murderer is amazing. Life doesn't fit into our neat little boxes, even if you wish it did. I don't need to defend what we did with my mother in-law. Her life was miserable. She has had no life for many years. To allow her to die was loving and gracious. Tragic, not easy. Of course. Real life happens. Real people deal with real situations. They cannot be dealt easily with general principles that we just impose on them. If you only knew of what you speak. This obviously will get nowhere. The kind of universe you live in is not mine and mine is not yours. I wish that were different. But it isn't. We all need to be where we are for a variety of reasons.For some, life is just easier when it's put in a little box. It fits our psychologcial as well as our spiritual needs. Just know that a whole lot of people don't think like you. And we are Christians, too.What's the problem Willy? I am guilty of the whole Law as well. I never asked you to defend what you did, and I agree that it may have been motivated by love and concern for your mother in-law. Don't use this as a convienient excuse to avoid the conversation, to avoid the questions.

[Willy]

I am not avoiding the conversation. Dialogue becomes next to impossible when there is truth and falsehood, when the tricky in-between stuff is not at all embraced. When wou are called a murderer (this one would be funny if it weren't so tragic) and when you are told that you repudiate "God's word", it's hard to want to dialogue. Dialogue is not helped by name calling, especially when frankly you don't know what you are talking about. I told my son about this little conversation, and he said that with some people there is just no dialoguing. I know that for many, I'm not sure if you are one of the many, dialogue represents a nod toward relativism. Dialogue for some is just not possible, because, well, the truth, is so obvious and so straight forward. Don't believe it. Sorry. Pray for my lost soul, if you wish.

[Protoevangel]

I am not avoiding the conversation. Dialogue becomes next to impossible when there is truth and falsehood, when the tricky in-between stuff is not at all embraced. When wou are called a murderer (this one would be funny if it weren't so tragic) and when you are told that you repudiate "God's word", it's hard to want to dialogue. Dialogue is not helped by name calling, especially when frankly you don't know what you are talking about. I told my son about this little conversation, and he said that with some people there is just no dialoguing. I know that for many, I'm not sure if you are one of the many, dialogue represents a nod toward relativism. Dialogue for some is just not possible, because, well, the truth, is so obvious and so straight forward. Don't believe it. Sorry. Pray for my lost soul, if you wish.
You are not avoiding the conversation? http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/otn/laughing/yelrotflmao.gif Like I said before, if what you have is the truth then it should stand on it's own, any objections notwithstanding. But the fact is that you have avoided genuine dialog since the beginning, avoiding any direct answer to all questions in favor of bringing up side issues and vague generalities.

And you knew full well the direction my answer would go when you talked about what you did to your mother-in-law. My position has been plain for all, especially you who challanged me in the Terri Shaivo thread. I can only assume you must made your post in the hope that it would give you further excuse to avoid any real discussion. The fact of the matter is, that issue isn't even the main point, but you are all to happy to call off the entire discussion because of it.

Calling names, please! http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/cwm/cwm/uhoh3.gif If JimBob told you that he had conjugal relations with a young child, "out of love for her", and you responded by saying what he did was child molestation, would you be calling him names? Was David "a murderer", or was he a man after God's own heart who sinned and repented? A statement about what you did does not equate to a statement about what or who you are.

What is dialog?
* A conversation between two or more people.
* To engage in an informal exchange of views, ideas or opinions.

Nothing I have said has eliminated or limited your ability to make your position clear. The only thing that has done that is you own unwillingness to do so. If you don't want to talk to me because you don't like me, that's fine, just stop this charade of claiming that I am the one limiting the dialog. :doh:

And yes, I will pray for you, the same prayer I pray for myself; that we both continue to learn, understand and grow in the Truth that is God and His eternal Word. Amen.

[Willy]

So allowing a hopelessly ill person die with dignity is the same as child molestation. Oh my! More than I can handle.

[Protoevangel]

Will we no longer be nurtured? Will our basic needs purposely be ignored? Will we not be given the basic care our bodys need? No, our death will resemble the death of an unwanted dog who is abandoned by his owner and left to die of starvation and dehydration. Hunger, thirst, tormenting weakness, agonizing muscle spasms, the ultimate cannibalism as the body devours itself. Dignified.


Now, why don't you stop obsessing on one issue? Broaden your horizons a little and pick up on some of the many subthreads you have left dangling for so long.

[Jim47]

Oh my. To be called a murderer is amazing. Life doesn't fit into our neat little boxes, even if you wish it did. I don't need to defend what we did with my mother in-law. Her life was miserable. She has had no life for many years. To allow her to die was loving and gracious. Tragic, not easy. Of course. Real life happens. Real people deal with real situations. They cannot be dealt easily with general principles that we just impose on them. If you only knew of what you speak. This obviously will get nowhere. The kind of universe you live in is not mine and mine is not yours. I wish that were different. But it isn't. We all need to be where we are for a variety of reasons.For some, life is just easier when it's put in a little box. It fits our psychologcial as well as our spiritual needs. Just know that a whole lot of people don't think like you. And we are Christians, too.


Hi Willy! :wave:

I have been watching this conversation and haven't said much as Dan has been doing what I think is a good job.

I'm not here to bash you or cause you trouble, I just want to offer a few words.

In matters of life and death, such as being discussed here, it is not our wisdom that we need to pay attention to. We all have to give an account to God for why we refuse to obey His Will. God is the only one that has the right to give life or take it away, its just not our choice at all. All we can do is pray and follow His direction.

In this modern day and age people who suffer from pain and disease have many medications and treatments available to help relieve suffering. I know a little about this from my own experience but don't care to make myself the center of this discussion.

The whole point is that we simply don't have the right to take our own life or that of another except to punish people who have committed greivious sins such as murder.

Why should we think that we have th right to override God's decision and rule for our lives? You confess faith in God but seem to deny His Will. Don't you find this somewhat hypocriticial? We don't have the choice of believeing and following which rules God has given us, for God gave us all rules, and to disobey one because of stubborn refusal to accept His will because we just don't agree with Him is not right. When we do that we have opened the door for Satan to enter in and cause more doubt and unbelief. Refusing to believe even one rule God has given us is very dangerous to our Spiritual health.

I pray that God may help you and give you His understanding.

Peace friend. :prayer:

[Willy]

Hi Willy! :wave:

I have been watching this conversation and haven't said much as Dan has been doing what I think is a good job.

I'm not here to bash you or cause you trouble, I just want to offer a few words.

In matters of life and death, such as being discussed here, it is not our wisdom that we need to pay attention to. We all have to give an account to God for why we refuse to obey His Will. God is the only one that has the right to give life or take it away, its just not our choice at all. All we can do is pray and follow His direction.

In this modern day and age people who suffer from pain and disease have many medications and treatments available to help relieve suffering. I know a little about this from my own experience but don't care to make myself the center of this discussion.

The whole point is that we simply don't have the right to take our own life or that of another except to punish people who have committed greivious sins such as murder.

Why should we think that we have th right to override God's decision and rule for our lives? You confess faith in God but seem to deny His Will. Don't you find this somewhat hypocriticial? We don't have the choice of believeing and following which rules God has given us, for God gave us all rules, and to disobey one because of stubborn refusal to accept His will because we just don't agree with Him is not right. When we do that we have opened the door for Satan to enter in and cause more doubt and unbelief. Refusing to believe even one rule God has given us is very dangerous to our Spiritual health.

I pray that God may help you and give you His understanding.

Peace friend. :prayer:
You two don't know what you are talking about. Sorry you don't know the situation. "God's decision and rule for our lives?" Do you have a personal inside track to that? Sorry I'm not so bold or arrogant to claim that inside track. Enough of this bantering. I can't take it any more. It only serves to raise my blood pressure. And you shouldn't have the power to do so. You do make it clear to me, though, that those who see the world through ideological eyes often don't care about the specifics of situations. The specifics just muddy the water too much. I've got too much caring for real people in real situations to do--people who, by the way, really value my commitment to discovering truth in the midst of ambiguity.

[Jim47]

You two don't know what you are talking about. Sorry you don't know the situation. "God's decision and rule for our lives?" Do you have a personal inside track to that? Sorry I'm not so bold or arrogant to claim that inside track. Enough of this bantering. I can't take it any more. It only serves to raise my blood pressure. And you shouldn't have the power to do so. You do make it clear to me, though, that those who see the world through ideological eyes often don't care about the specifics of situations. The specifics just muddy the water too much. I've got too much caring for real people in real situations to do--people who, by the way, really value my commitment to discovering truth in the midst of ambiguity.

I can see that you feel like you are being attacked, and I am sorry for that. I don't think that is Dan's goal or mine. We simply want to share some guidance from God.

What we want is for you to have the strength and comfort that only God can give, but we can have that only if we submitt to His Will.

Jn 8:31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

[Willy]

Submit to his will? Can you tell me where your insights for his will come from? In the gospel of John "the truth" is a person. His name is Jesus. He reveals to us God. Note the kind of life that the "truth" led. Truth, when seen from the experience of Jesus, is a phenomenally dynamic event.

[Jim47]

[QUOTE=Willy]Submit to his will? Can you tell me where your insights for his will come from?


The Holy Bible, God's Word has direction for everything that can happen in our lives. I'm sorry but I don't understand the rest of your statement.



In the gospel of John "the truth" is a person. His name is Jesus. He reveals to us God. Note the kind of life that the "truth" led. Truth, when seen from the experience of Jesus, is a phenomenally dynamic event.

[Protoevangel]

Jim47 was right Willy. I am not, in any way attacking you; I wish you no harm, I wish instead for you to understand that there is certianty in the Truth. Where do we have this "personal inside track", these "insights for his will"? The same place you can Willy, in God's Holy Word, wherein He revealed all we can be assured in, of, and about.

John 8:12
Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life."

Yes, Willy, the truth is dynamic, in that it is full of intensity and vigor. The truth is not, however dynamic in the sense that it is characterized by change or progress. The truth, the light, is free from darkness and ambiguity, Willy. You can see clearly in the light, that's where I want you to be. I want you to have the assurance that is already yours, in Christ. I have no hatred or malice toward you Willy, I want us to be brothers, in the truth and in the light of Christ. I know what I said hurt you Willy, but would it be more loving to ignore the truth to spare your feelings? Have I therefore become your enemy because I told you the truth? I know I could have been more compassionate in my delivery, and for that I am genuinly sorry, please forgive me.

He who believes in Christ is not condemned. Neither do I not condemn you. I call out to you, please come home, to the truth, where you belong.

[Willy]

Trust me. The truth is what I want to discover. The Lutheran perspective is more that the truth has discovered us. It is always bigger than us and our articulation of it. The Bible bears witness to the truth. It is not the truth. John tells us that Jesus is the truth. That is, he bears witness to what is finally and ultimately true: God himself. Truth is not something I have as if I can own it. Truth is something that is always after me. That's the brilliance of the Lutheran witness. My life ought to be about giving in to the truth that has me. Such giving in is not a matter of believing a bunch of do's and don'ts that those from a certain perspective prescribe. The faith and the Bible are too important for them to become answer books held captive by those with preconceived notions about what they mean and say. Do you know how condescending it sounds to be told that I am outside of the truth or the will of God? While truthfully I am, since my life like all of life reflects the brokenness of the creation, that outsideness is not because I fall outside of a narrow notion of what Christianity and the Bible mean. Just because I walk with people, including my own family, through very tough terrain and support them while they make very tough choices in a variety of issues does not mean that I have given my soul to the devil. Struggle is the essence of what faith means. Faith is not certainty, but the willingness to trust in the midst of uncertainty.

[Willy]

[QUOTE]


The Holy Bible, God's Word has direction for everything that can happen in our lives. I'm sorry but I don't understand the rest of your statement.



Does the Bible inform the kinds of clothes you wear? Read Leviticus, and the clothes that you have that have two different kinds of material would have to go. Does the Bible inform the way you treat people who practice astrology? It says that you should stone them. Do you believe that women are saved by bearing children? First Timothy says that. Is this how you view the role of women? The Bible is not the anwser book to all the questions of life. The Bible is the church's book that invites us into the very struggles that it reveals. I know of nowhere in the Bible where dealing with my mother in-law's situation is addressed. The Bible would know nothing about her disease, feeding tubes, modern technology. But the Bible has plunged me into the struggle in which a very faithful, life-affirming decision was made.

[ChiRho]

The Bible would know nothing about her disease, feeding tubes, modern technology.

Holy (expletive)!

[ChiRho]

Does the Bible inform the kinds of clothes you wear? Read Leviticus, and the clothes that you have that have two different kinds of material would have to go. Does the Bible inform the way you treat people who practice astrology? It says that you should stone them. Do you believe that women are saved by bearing children? First Timothy says that. Is this how you view the role of women? The Bible is not the anwser book to all the questions of life. The Bible is the church's book that invites us into the very struggles that it reveals. I know of nowhere in the Bible where dealing with my mother in-law's situation is addressed. The Bible would know nothing about her disease, feeding tubes, modern technology. But the Bible has plunged me into the struggle in which a very faithful, life-affirming decision was made.

Low view of Scripture. You get this sort of junk everytime you deal with someone who hold's a low view of Scripture.

The Bible is not the anwser book to all the questions of life.

...that took the cake. Really. We really should determine what "life" and "answer" mean, but why bother, it seems as if we live in different families--with different Fathers.

Does the Bible inform the way you treat people who practice astrology? It says that you should stone them.

And this is funny. I know children that could help Willy out on this one.

Pax

[Protoevangel]

And this is funny. I know children that could help Willy out on this one.That's the thing about truth, isn't it? It is simple enough for the children to understand, but it confounds the wise and learned!

[Jim47]

Trust me. The truth is what I want to discover. The Lutheran perspective is more that the truth has discovered us. It is always bigger than us and our articulation of it. The Bible bears witness to the truth. It is not the truth. John tells us that Jesus is the truth. That is, he bears witness to what is finally and ultimately true: God himself. Truth is not something I have as if I can own it. Truth is something that is always after me. That's the brilliance of the Lutheran witness. My life ought to be about giving in to the truth that has me. Such giving in is not a matter of believing a bunch of do's and don'ts that those from a certain perspective prescribe. The faith and the Bible are too important for them to become answer books held captive by those with preconceived notions about what they mean and say. Do you know how condescending it sounds to be told that I am outside of the truth or the will of God? While truthfully I am, since my life like all of life reflects the brokenness of the creation, that outsideness is not because I fall outside of a narrow notion of what Christianity and the Bible mean. Just because I walk with people, including my own family, through very tough terrain and support them while they make very tough choices in a variety of issues does not mean that I have given my soul to the devil. Struggle is the essence of what faith means. Faith is not certainty, but the willingness to trust in the midst of uncertainty.

:cry:

[Jim47]

[QUOTE=Jim47]
Does the Bible inform the kinds of clothes you wear? Read Leviticus, and the clothes that you have that have two different kinds of material would have to go. Does the Bible inform the way you treat people who practice astrology? It says that you should stone them. Do you believe that women are saved by bearing children? First Timothy says that. Is this how you view the role of women? The Bible is not the anwser book to all the questions of life. The Bible is the church's book that invites us into the very struggles that it reveals. I know of nowhere in the Bible where dealing with my mother in-law's situation is addressed. The Bible would know nothing about her disease, feeding tubes, modern technology. But the Bible has plunged me into the struggle in which a very faithful, life-affirming decision was made.


Willy

I think it is time for you to take a serious look at your faith. I would like to suggest that you quit fighting God and His Word and learn what submittion really means.

What you are trying to do is the same thing that "The World" does, and that is to reject God, Our Father, Our King, Our Creator and make their own God, one that they can rule over and call on when they have needs. That is "not" who Our God and Father is.

You can not claim to have faith in God and blatently reject His Word and His instruction for our lives. It just doesn't work that way.

Know The truth and The Truth shall set you free. God and His Word is Truth! Everything else men believe in is only lies. And all lies come from Satan

I am not speaking against you, but trying with Godly love and God's Wisdom asking you to accept God and His Word.

May God grant you true faith.

[SPALATIN]

[QUOTE=Jim47]
Do you believe that women are saved by bearing children? First Timothy says that. Is this how you view the role of women? The Bible is not the anwser book to all the questions of life. The Bible is the church's book that invites us into the very struggles that it reveals. I know of nowhere in the Bible where dealing with my mother in-law's situation is addressed. The Bible would know nothing about her disease, feeding tubes, modern technology. But the Bible has plunged me into the struggle in which a very faithful, life-affirming decision was made.

The Bible contains the Word of God. The Gospel of John says that in the Beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God...

God gave you your life so does he know about your mother-in-laws disease and the problems that go along with it? Yes! Mankind suffers because of sin that he brought into this world by his own self-centered action of being disobedient to God. We as humans don't like to see those we care about suffer, but God didn't give us the right to Euthanize them because of it. We can try to make them comfortable by giving them pain killers to help them as they pass on, but we don't have the right to take their life.

As for women, the Bible is clear on their vocation. It is to be a wife to the husband and mother to children. She is to keep silent in the church and if she has questions to ask her husband at a later time. I realize that the Church to which you are ordained does not hold to this teaching because of the Historical Critical line of thinking. I feel this teaching has led to many gross errors in your synod and has weakened your position as a called and ordained servant of the word.

The teaching on women is New Testament and the teaching on Clothes is Old testament and went to the Levitical laws which basically ended with Christ. If this or any of the posts has you deciding that you don't want to take part in our forum any longer it would not surprise me. We are not here to attack you personally, but to show you how the beliefs that you have presented to us over the last several months are less than the bible, confessions and Lutheran church ascribe to when they say Believe, Teach and confess.

If as you say this makes your blood pressure rise it might be wise to stay away from it, but I am not a Dr. and cannot advise you medically in this regard.

In Christ,

[Willy]

That's the thing about truth, isn't it? It is simple enough for the children to understand, but it confounds the wise and learned!
The truth is what you decide it to be, and all others are outside of the will of God. Ugh!!! This is too much. I just read what one of the members of our church wrote about his view of the role of the Bible. My last post (I really can't take it any more) will include portions of his writing: "The Word of God is the gospel, the good news. The scriptures, liberated from fundamentalism, literalism, and Biblicism, are accessible again for being the norm for faith and life of the church...I find it increasingly important to try and forget that I "know" about a Biblical story or oft-used text and read it again for the first time. There is often a gulf between what the Scriptures say, and what we think they say, or what we remember they say." Good stuff. Oh before I quite, Scott, do you really believe what you said about women? If you do, I'm glad you don't live in our community (sociologically and theologically speaking.) You may not survive the stoning that might occur! Hey you all make me very glad to be where I am and among the people I serve. What a wonderful community of faith they are. You have every right to stick to your Lutheran fundamentalism. I hope it serves you well.

[SPALATIN]

The truth is what you decide it to be, and all others are outside of the will of God. Ugh!!! This is too much. I just read what one of the members of our church wrote about his view of the role of the Bible. My last post (I really can't take it any more) will include portions of his writing: "The Word of God is the gospel, the good news. The scriptures, liberated from fundamentalism, literalism, and Biblicism, are accessible again for being the norm for faith and life of the church...I find it increasingly important to try and forget that I "know" about a Biblical story or oft-used text and read it again for the first time. There is often a gulf between what the Scriptures say, and what we think they say, or what we remember they say." Good stuff. Oh before I quite, Scott, do you really believe what you said about women? If you do, I'm glad you don't live in our community (sociologically and theologically speaking.) You may not survive the stoning that might occur! Hey you all make me very glad to be where I am and among the people I serve. What a wonderful community of faith they are. You have every right to stick to your Lutheran fundamentalism. I hope it serves you well.

Quite frankly, Willy, I don't care what you think about me as you seem not to care what I think about you so on that basis we are even. Feminism is a world thing and does not belong in the church. Therefore what I speak of is only regarding church. My wife works and makes far more money than I do (thank God for that) which really makes it possible for us to live in a nice house and drive decent used vehicles. I work with many fine women who more than hold their own in their positions so do I take that away from them. No. I give them the respect they deserve and believe that they have earned the pay if they have worked for it.

Now when I get to Bible and Church issues I abide 100% by the word of God though I am a sinner and have no ability on my own to do so I have to depend on the Grace of God to have faith. So I don't believe that what I am doing is any more fundamentalist than you are utopian in your views. I reject the Historical-Critical view of scripture that your synod espouses.

Now hopefully I have made that clear so that you understand my position better. Oh and don't expect to see me in your church let alone your communion rail anytime in the future.

[Protoevangel]

The truth is what you decide it to be, and all others are outside of the will of God.Your actions and words show it is the same with you, Willy. The difference is, we use the Word of God to judge ourselves and our doctrine, while you hold yourself above Sacred Scripture, and judge the Word.


That's fine Willy, leave if you must. After repeated attempts to hear you, you have continually refused to answer many questions, including what you meant by your John Shelby Spong stylized quote in post#5 "That difference requires us to speak of the eternal in a different way. Frankly, if we don't, the faith will die." How will a Faith that is given by God die Willy?

All I can say is if you do decide to leave, as far as I am concerned, you are always welcome back. Maybe you can try your hand at some of the more lightweight, fellowship posts. Let us get to know one another instead of just arguing in the debate threads. Don't go away mad Willy; don't let the sun go down on your anger.



"For defending the truth in our day, we are called proud and obstinate hypocrites. We are not ashamed of these titles. The cause we are called to defend, is not Peter's cause, or the cause of our parents, or that of the government, or that of the world, but the cause of God. In defense of that cause we must be firm and unyielding."
- Martin Luther
A Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians

[Jim47]

"For defending the truth in our day, we are called proud and obstinate hypocrites. We are not ashamed of these titles. The cause we are called to defend, is not Peter's cause, or the cause of our parents, or that of the government, or that of the world, but the cause of God. In defense of that cause we must be firm and unyielding."
- Martin Luther
A Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians


I like that quote Dan. I'm still trying to find time to read Luther's writings. Where can I find this quote?

[Protoevangel]

It is on CCEL (Christian Classics Etheral Library) in many forms. I am currently reading it in PalmDocBook format.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/galatians.html

The quote is Chapter 2, Verse 11, paragraph 2.

There is more richness in this commentary than in any other I have ever read. I am thinking I will have to re-read this book every year, or even more often... it is THAT good!

[Willy]

Quite frankly, Willy, I don't care what you think about me as you seem not to care what I think about you so on that basis we are even. Feminism is a world thing and does not belong in the church. Therefore what I speak of is only regarding church. My wife works and makes far more money than I do (thank God for that) which really makes it possible for us to live in a nice house and drive decent used vehicles. I work with many fine women who more than hold their own in their positions so do I take that away from them. No. I give them the respect they deserve and believe that they have earned the pay if they have worked for it.

Now when I get to Bible and Church issues I abide 100% by the word of God though I am a sinner and have no ability on my own to do so I have to depend on the Grace of God to have faith. So I don't believe that what I am doing is any more fundamentalist than you are utopian in your views. I reject the Historical-Critical view of scripture that your synod espouses.

Now hopefully I have made that clear so that you understand my position better. Oh and don't expect to see me in your church let alone your communion rail anytime in the future.
You'd be welcome.

[SPALATIN]

You'd be welcome.

Appreciate it but thanks just the same.:)

[Jim47]

It is on CCEL (Christian Classics Etheral Library) in many forms. I am currently reading it in PalmDocBook format.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/galatians.html

The quote is Chapter 2, Verse 11, paragraph 2.

There is more richness in this commentary than in any other I have ever read. I am thinking I will have to re-read this book every year, or even more often... it is THAT good!


Thanks Dan! Hope I can read all his writings some day.

He often reminds me of St Paul