OK we can find stuff to split us up...

[RedneckAnglican]

But what in ya'lls opinion brings us together?...are we REALLY that hoplessly split on ALL issues?...what (if anything) do we still have in common?...as Lutherans?...

[Jim47]

Good question, but I don't think I'm qualified to answer it.

[Music4Hym777]

But what in ya'lls opinion brings us together?...are we REALLY that hoplessly split on ALL issues?...what (if anything) do we still have in common?...as Lutherans?...

real presence in communion
infant baptism
Luther founded the denom
apostles creed
liturgy (no matter how much we might think its different, I have been to a few different synod churches and it is the exact same!)

[Qoheleth]

But what in ya'lls opinion brings us together?...are we REALLY that hoplessly split on ALL issues?...what (if anything) do we still have in common?...as Lutherans?...

If you only knew.

Strict adherence to the BoC, as it is presented in its totality without exception. Otherwise, the Lutheran church is no more.

Q

[AngelusSax]

Hopefully, my answer (which isn't a contraditiction to anyone, just an addition) is something which brings more than just different Lutherans together.

The Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Hopefully, that is the one thing that all Christians can actually agree on... and it is, as far as I know.

[KagomeShuko]

adding to everything else posted here. . .

Salvation by Grace through faith alone. . .

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[revjpw]

The Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Salvation by Grace through faith alone. . .


Probably those two and the word "Lutheran" on the signs are about it.
But at least it's a place to start.:)

[theologia crucis]

We share many hymns.

God works through His Word and Sacraments despite our human failings and He alone sustains His church, composed of all that trust that His Son died and rose for our sins, regardless of the denominational name we attach to ourselves.

(Do not read this wrong: I am NOT a universalist/unitarian, etc.! I am a Lutheran Christian by grace alone through faith alone for Christ's sake!!!)

[Tetzel]

Do we really have differences in theology, or is it application and everyday pratice that cause the rifts?

[theologia crucis]

There are some real differences in theology, fundamental ones, even in regards to original sin and justification (if I remember correctly).

[revjpw]

We share many hymns.

God works through His Word and Sacraments despite our human failings and He alone sustains His church, composed of all that trust that His Son died and rose for our sins, regardless of the denominational name we attach to ourselves.


That's what is called the invisible Church, the members of which only God Himself knows.

[revjpw]

There are some real differences in theology, fundamental ones, even in regards to original sin and justification (if I remember correctly).

...as well as Word and Sacrament...

[AngelusSax]

...as well as Word and Sacrament...

I'm not aware of a Lutheran church which doesn't adhere to Sacraments.... Which synods don't do this?

[purpleunicorn_Andi]

We all have CHRIST.... don't we?

[Qoheleth]

The Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Salvation by Grace through faith alone. . .



Probably those two and the word "Lutheran" on the signs are about it.
But at least it's a place to start.:)

And every Non-Denominational church, Baptist, Reformed and so on can be labeled in this way.

But what defines Lutherans? What distinguishes us particularly from others?

What should hold all Lutherans together, unquestionably in Doctrine, Liturgy and practice?

Do we believe that the Lutheran church is the visible church??

Q

[revjpw]

I'm not aware of a Lutheran church which doesn't adhere to Sacraments.... Which synods don't do this?

Well..., the ELCA, through their full altar/pulpit fellowship with Reformed church bodies who reject the Real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament, does not hold the Sacrament in high regard, especially when they allow those who reject the Body of the Lord in the Sacrament to commune at their communion rails and thus commit sin against the Body of Christ as taught in 1 Corinthians 11.


This is another one that we've been around and around with.:doh:

[revjpw]

What should hold all Lutherans together, unquestionably in Doctrine, Liturgy and practice?


Justification by Grace alone through Faith alone in Christ alone.

Full subscription to the 66 canonical books of the Bible as the inerrant, inspired Word of the Living God and the only source and norm of all teaching in the Church.

Full subscription of the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church contained in the Book of Concord of 1580 because they are thoroughly Scriptural and that they are the only true exposition of the Biblical doctrines.

A liturgical style that conveys the Divine Service of God, whereby we as His gathered children receive His gifts through the Means of Grace and give thanks and praise to Him for what He has done and continues to do for us.

The Sacraments administered according to Christ's institution and the proper distinction between Law and Gospel preached in it's purity.

[Qoheleth]

Justification by Grace alone through Faith alone in Christ alone.

Yes, it is accomplished by Grace through Faith in Christ alone.

Full subscription to the 66 canonical books of the Bible as the inerrant, inspired Word of the Living God and the only source and norm of all teaching in the Church.

The terms "source" and "norm" need to be clarified.

Full subscription of the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church contained in the Book of Concord of 1580 because they are thoroughly Scriptural

Agreed that in context, the BoC is faithful.

they are the only true exposition of the Biblical doctrines

This statement goes to far. Not even the Confessions admit to this nor did you have to subscribed to this at your ordination.

The subscription to the BoC is that they are "A" correct exposition not "the" only correct exposition.

A liturgical style that conveys the Divine Service of God, whereby we as His gathered children receive His gifts through the Means of Grace and give thanks and praise to Him for what He has done and continues to do for us.

If by this you mean that the Holy Eucharist is the primary reason for our gathering and that our Communion with God through the Sacrament is necessary, then yes I agree.

But all Liturgy must be structured so that it remains sacramental and not simply evangelical. The Mass is the Eucharist (Holy Communion), it must be the reason for the Service.

The Sacraments administered according to Christ's institution and the proper distinction between Law and Gospel preached in it's purity.

And only if accomplished in a Christological framework.

Q

[AngelusSax]

Well..., the ELCA, through their full altar/pulpit fellowship with Reformed church bodies who reject the Real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament, does not hold the Sacrament in high regard, especially when they allow those who reject the Body of the Lord in the Sacrament to commune at their communion rails and thus commit sin against the Body of Christ as taught in 1 Corinthians 11.

This doesn't fly with what I experience. The invitation to communion specifically says "All baptized and pentient Christians who believe in the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ are welcome to come forth to take communion."

[Phoebe]

This doesn't fly with what I experience. The invitation to communion specifically says "All baptized and pentient Christians who believe in the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ are welcome to come forth to take communion."

Ditto.

[VeryTiredGirl]

This doesn't fly with what I experience. The invitation to communion specifically says "All baptized and pentient Christians who believe in the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ are welcome to come forth to take communion."

In the ELCIC churches I've attended (the equivalent to the ELCA in the States), the invitation to Communion is for 'all baptized believers'. The churches I have attended in the ELCIC synod have practiced full eucharistic hospitality. My supervisor at the place I volunteer at is ELCIC, and they practice eucharistic hospitality as well. As long as you're Christian and baptized, you can come, regardless of whether the person believes in Real Presence, Transsubstantiation or symbolism only.

[RedneckAnglican]

LORD help me I think I going LCMS on this one...I don't mind "sharing" communion with folks, but I think I'm leaning with them at least believing the same thing about communion that I believe...I don't mind sharing with folks who believe in real presence...but with folks who say it's "just a symbol"...that kinda doesn't fly with me...doesn't make sence...I mean if I believe that the bread is REALLY CHRISTS body and the person next to me thinks it's a SYMBOL of CHRIST'S body are we really sharing the same meal?...

[revjpw]

This doesn't fly with what I experience. The invitation to communion specifically says "All baptized and pentient Christians who believe in the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ are welcome to come forth to take communion."

Then that invitation specifically excludes all of the members of the Reformed Church of America, the Presbyterian Church USA, and the United Church of Christ with which the ELCA is (supposedly) in full altar communion with. Are you saying that the ELCA is no longer in full communion with those reformed church bodies who do not believ in the Real Presence?


Hmmm, perhaps some progress afterall...

[revjpw]

In the ELCIC churches... they practice eucharistic hospitality as well. As long as you're Christian and baptized, you can come, regardless of whether the person believes in Real Presence, Transsubstantiation or symbolism only.

Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Let us all pray for those who are sinning at the altars of the ELCIC.:prayer:
How truly sad.:(

[AngelusSax]

Then that invitation specifically excludes all of the members of the Reformed Church of America, the Presbyterian Church USA, and the United Church of Christ with which the ELCA is (supposedly) in full altar communion with. Are you saying that the ELCA is no longer in full communion with those reformed church bodies who do not believ in the Real Presence?

I think it might vary amongst the congregations. I think perhaps we are "officially" in open communion, but it may be left up to the individual congregations to decide. But anyway, the full open communion thing tends to go more this way:

ELCA members are allowed to take communion at other churches, and do take communion, and they still hold that the Real Presence is there. Other church members tend to not come to the ELCA churches though.

Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

When I read that passage (the broader one), the theme I got was "if yo come here to get full and get drunk off the wine, you're wrong, and you're even more wrong if you get there early and take so much no one else after you can eat or drink any."

Before I hear it, I know. "It's not what the Confessions say." Well... in all honesty, I'm more worried about what the Bible says... and what it actually says.

EDIT: Nevermind... it does mention recognizing the body and Lord later. It is the previous part of the passage that talks of the people getting drunk and whatnot. Still, couldn't we begin posting, perhaps... entire passages on here? Would make things a little easier, as well as display more credibility on our parts.

Also.... anyone know what Paul's additional instructions were when he visited them in person? He does say he would give further instruction when he comes, so.... what was that? (11:34)

[Qoheleth]

When I read that passage (the broader one), the theme I got was "if yo come here to get full and get drunk off the wine, you're wrong, and you're even more wrong if you get there early and take so much no one else after you can eat or drink any."

Thats why you need the church to help with understanding particular passages or else we will formulate whatever we feel is right in our interpretations.

Q

[Protoevangel]

This doesn't fly with what I experience. The invitation to communion specifically says "All baptized and pentient Christians who believe in the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ are welcome to come forth to take communion."
Hey,

I wish I could say the same. We did have a temp pastor once who mentioned that all who believe that Christ was Truly Present was welcome at The Table. Our regular pastor, however, dosen't even make distintions for baptized, or even believers. He says "all are welcome..."

"Open" Communion dosen't have to be a total circus, but it so often is. :cry:

[night2day]

AngelusSax & Phoebe,

Being repentant, which includes being heartly sorry, asking for forgiveness, and knowing one is fully forgiven in Christ is a large portion of it. The problem lays according to the Scriptures Christistians must first examine themselves before they take communion. (1 Corinthians 11). One cannot do this unless they are aware of how to do so. So, they need to be taught the basics of the Christiann faith.

Also, in communion, one not only takes communion to recieve the means of grace, but also also to stand in unity with fellow believers. Whoever's alter you stand at, you are agreeing with their doctrines and teachings. If those teachings conflict with the scriptures, then how can this can be the true unity in teaching and doctrine the scriptures call for to be taught within Christ's Chruch? So, if one is taught the basic teachings of the Christian faith, but also believe in herisies...they are still not in unity nor union and are unable to recieve communion according to the scriptures.

Most, if not all, of the churches here in the USA had close(d) communion up until the 1930s. It was also during this time other subtle changes were taking place within the churches in general. Change doesn't usually happen suddenly, but over time.

Unlike what many assume, communion is not just between one and God...but a public testimoney of one's faith.

[night2day]

We all have CHRIST.... don't we?

The only thing that could ever bring Lutherans back together of differnt denominations is returning to the pure, unadulterated scriptures and taking them for as they are, within their literary context. What happened histiorically is historical, dreams put forth as are dreams, prophcey is prophcey, parables are parables, and miracles are real-life miracles which once occured.

Regardless if human reason scoffs or is confused at the reading. Regardless if a universal, global flood seems outlandash; regardless if the sun stopping in the sky for one entire day seems silly, regardless if a virgin birth must be impossible; regardless if Jesus rising up from the dead was actually a physical phenomena...unlike some who wish to believe it was merely a "spiritual resurrecetion" in which Jesus finally became a god. (huh?!?!)...

Anyway...so stated since some in several of the Lutheran synods, either offically or unoffically have strayed from the scriptures being the infallible, inerrant, unadulterated, word of God. And once that happens. On what does one rely? Yes, the Holy Spirit, brings us and sustains us within the faith. But, He does use the Gopel in order to do it.

In other words, He works through God's word.

[Qoheleth]

Anyway...so stated since some in several of the Lutheran synods, either offically or unoffically have strayed from the scriptures being the infallible, inerrant, unadulterated, word of God. And once that happens. On what does one rely. Yes, the Holy Spirit, brings us and sustains us within the faith. But, He does us the Gopel in order to do it.

In other words, He works through God's word.

And then when the LCMS and ELS and WELS and the ELCA and others all say that they have the Holy Spirit guiding them and all have differing interpretations...then what?

How do we determine then who actually is being faithfully guided and listening to the Holy Spirit??

On what basis can we make this judgement?

Q

[revjpw]

ELCA members are allowed to take communion at other churches, and do take communion, and they still hold that the Real Presence is there. Other church members tend to not come to the ELCA churches though.

But if one holds to the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church then the Real Presence is not in the "supper" of those Reformed church bodies because their administration of the Sacrament is outside of Christ's institution. They give different meanings to the "Words of Institution" to the point that they are no longer Christ's words. In other words, the Sacrament is not present in herteodox church bodies because the true Word of God is not joined with the elements, therefore, there is no Real Presence, there is no Sacrament. Does the ELCA not hold to the SD?


When I read that passage (the broader one), the theme I got was "if yo come here to get full and get drunk off the wine, you're wrong, and you're even more wrong if you get there early and take so much no one else after you can eat or drink any."

The immediate context is very clear. It is speaking directly of the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament.

[revjpw]

And then when the LCMS and ELS and WELS and the ELCA and others all say that they have the Holy Spirit guiding them and all have differing interpretations...then what?

How do we determine then who actually is being faithfully guided and listening to the Holy Spirit??

On what basis can we make this judgement?

Q

The job of the Holy Spirit is to point us to Christ. Christ communicates to us through His Word. Anyone can obviously say that they have the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but if the supposed guidance runs against the clear Word of God, then in reality they are not guided by the Holy Spirit.
Certainly the one who has to tear down the Word of God or dismiss parts of it in order to sustain a social gospel do not have the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

[Qoheleth]

Anyone can obviously say that they have the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but if the supposed guidance runs against the clear Word of God, then in reality they are not guided by the Holy Spirit.

Doesnt this beg the question?

Who determines that the clear Word of God has been rightly understood?

Q

[revjpw]

Doesnt this beg the question?

Who determines that the clear Word of God has been rightly understood?

Q

Scripture interprets Scripture. That is the standard.

There are some so-called "understandings" of Scripture that it leaves very little doubt that their supposed "guidance" is not true.

[Qoheleth]

Scripture interprets Scripture. That is the standard.

No Holy Spirit needed then??

Q

[Qoheleth]

Scripture interprets Scripture. That is the standard.

We all know how "clear" scripture is interpreted (even Christ centered), differently by many believers.

Q

[Jim47]

Anyone can obviously say that they have the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but if the supposed guidance runs against the clear Word of God, then in reality they are not guided by the Holy Spirit.



Bingo! We are not guided by The Holy Spirit if in fact what we do and believe in is in direct contrast to The written Word of God. God's Word will forever be our Guide, and we don't have need of anything else.

[Qoheleth]

Bingo! We are not guided by The Holy Spirit if in fact what we do and believe in is in direct contrast to The written Word of God. God's Word will forever be our Guide, and we don't have need of anything else.

This fails to answer the question.

Who determines what someone else believes, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is in contrast to the Word of God?? You? Me?

Q

[VeryTiredGirl]

Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Let us all pray for those who are sinning at the altars of the ELCIC.:prayer:
How truly sad.:(


I have noticed that the pastors I have dealt with within the LCC (equivalent of LCMS in the States) at the very least make a statement saying that one must recognize the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament to be able to commune. Some churches strictly say that you must be LCC/LCMS/LCAustralia to commune.

I have made it my practice when I am visiting another congregation to speak to the pastor before the service, to allow him to ask any questions he may have before I present myself at the Lord's Table. Most are very appreciative of my gesture and will ask where I attend church and who my pastors are. One actually asked me so many questions I felt I was back at Confirmation Sunday. ;)

Then...there was the pastor whose church I visited this past fall who, when I told him I was visiting from out of town, just grunted a 'great' at me and left it at that. He didn't seem to care two bits who I was or what my beliefs were. I wasn't impressed. :(

[ByzantineDixie]

I have made it my practice when I am visiting another congregation to speak to the pastor before the service, to allow him to ask any questions he may have before I present myself at the Lord's Table. Most are very appreciative of my gesture and will ask where I attend church and who my pastors are. One actually asked me so many questions I felt I was back at Confirmation Sunday. ;)

Then...there was the pastor whose church I visited this past fall who, when I told him I was visiting from out of town, just grunted a 'great' at me and left it at that. He didn't seem to care two bits who I was or what my beliefs were. I wasn't impressed. :(




I do a fair bit of traveling and this has always been my practice too. I try to arrive plenty early enough to speak with the pastor or an elder. And, like you I have seen the response run the full range from "thank you--you are welcome to commune with us" :) to "why are you bothering me with this". :eek: :doh:

BTW...I had probably one of the best "pre-service" conversations with an LCC pastor in Waterloo, Ontario. GREAT Lutheran church. Super guy--very pastoral. I was blessed to have attended service there and communed at their table.

Rose

[revjpw]

No Holy Spirit needed then??

Q

I didn't say that.

[revjpw]

We all know how "clear" scripture is interpreted (even Christ centered), differently by many believers.

Q

But there is only one correct interpretation, aka the Confessions.

[revjpw]

Who determines what someone else believes, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is in contrast to the Word of God?? You? Me?

Scripture.

[Qoheleth]

But there is only one correct interpretation, aka the Confessions.

Again this is not accurate. The Confessions are not "the" only correct exposition and the Confessions make this clear.

And agian, as an ordained pastor you were only required to ascent to the Confessions as "A" correct exposition.

Scripture.

This is circular and you are not answering the question.

All Denominations use scripture to substantiate their doctrines in that, "scripture interprets scripture".

But then we all claim the Holy Spirit as guidance. Who decides when one has correctly intepreted scripture, when using only scripture?

Q

[Qoheleth]

No Holy Spirit needed then??

I didn't say that.



Well, if scripture plainly interprets scripture, then what is the need for the Holy Spirit in this regard??

Q

[catzinjammies]

This is where the sticky subject of Church tradition comes into play. Time was when you you could go into any Lutheran church, no synods deviding everone in those days, and you knew what you were going to get. Word & Sacrament, closed communion with all churches held to one standard. Now a church with the word Lutheran on the sign could be just about anything inside depending on the pastor. Even within WELS these days it's a **** shoot re: standards. We used to attend a WELS church in California that had a wonderful, orthodox Lutheran pastor. When he left the new guy got rid of the pipe organ and installed a midi system to go with the projection screen he had put up IN FRONT OF THE CROSS. Threw out the hymnal (and largley the liturgy with it) in favor of his printed liturgy each week. No point going on with this, you see what I mean. A return to traditional Lutheranism as it was before the splits that have rendered this denomination almost unrecognizable is our best bet IMHO.

CIJ

[Phoebe]

"For the Word by which it was constituted a sacrament is not rendered false because of an idividual's unworthiness or unbelief. Christ does not say, 'If you believe, or if you are worthy, you receive my body and blood,' but, 'Take, eat and drink, this is my body and blood.' Likewise, he says, 'Do this,' namely, what I now do, what I institute, what I give you and bid you to take.This is as much as to say, 'No matter whether you are worthy or unworthy, you here have Christ's body and blood by virtue of these words which are coupled with the bread and wine.' "

"It is not founded on the holiness of men but on the Word of God."


From the Large Catechism of Martin Luther.

[Jim47]

This fails to answer the question.

Who determines what someone else believes, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is in contrast to the Word of God?? You? Me?

Q

If we do what is contrary to God's Word, then we have not followed The Holy Spirits guidance.

Who determines it? Anyone able to understand God's Word.

[Qoheleth]

If we do what is contrary to God's Word, then we have not followed The Holy Spirits guidance.

Who determines it? Anyone able to understand God's Word.

Again this does not answer the concern.

Everyone who can read, has interpreted scripture according to their understanding. They have been lead to a "guided" interpretation that may differ (and has) from others.

We could spend all night, day, week, month, years debating the scripture and in the end, no agreement. Then both parties retreat to their corners claiming victory and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

So, how do you know who was actually guided by the Spirit?

Q

[revjpw]

A post of mine in this thread was wrongly deleted by a moderator. I am reposting it here:



The job of the Holy Spirit is to point us to Christ. Christ communicates to us through His Word. Anyone can obviously say that they have the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but if the supposed guidance runs against the clear Word of God, then in reality they are not guided by the Holy Spirit.
Certainly the one who has to tear down the Word of God or dismiss parts of it in order to sustain a social gospel do not have the guidance of the Holy Spirit.


This post is in response to interpretation of Scripture and NOT women in the ministry.

[revjpw]

Again this does not answer the concern.

Everyone who can read, has interpreted scripture according to their understanding. They have been lead to a "guided" interpretation that may differ (and has) from others.

We could spend all night, day, week, month, years debating the scripture and in the end, no agreement. Then both parties retreat to their corners claiming victory and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

So, how do you know who was actually guided by the Spirit?

Q

It is obvious. There is one Holy Spirit and one true interpretation of God's Word. So there cannot be multiple "correct" interpretations. Scripture interprets Scripture. For example, when talking about the Real Presence of the Lord's Supper, there is an immediate context of the account of the Last Supper and the Words of Institution. There is a greater context in St. Pauls teaching of the Sacrament in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11. And there is an even greater context in the 6th chapter of John's Gospel. When these things are read and applied in the proper context, there is no way that anyone can derive a "symbolic only" interpretation of the Lord's Supper from the Scriptures.

The Holy Spirit inspired the writing of the Scriptures. There can only be one correct interpretation.

[Qoheleth]

Scripture interprets Scripture

Again this would imply that there is no need for divine guidance or the Holy Spirit. No?

In reality then, our level of intelligence and comprehension will determine if we have properly understood scripture.


When these things are read and applied in the proper context

And who has determined the proper context? Whos exegesis is sound and complete?


there is no way that anyone can derive a "symbolic only" interpretation of the Lord's Supper from the Scriptures.

Yet a "spiritual" intepretation can be demonstrated as well as an accompanied "symbolic" meaning. Many church Fathers spoke of both. Who determines what is correct and conclusive?

Q

[revjpw]

Again this would imply that there is no need for divine guidance or the Holy Spirit. No?

In reality then, our level of intelligence and comprehension will determine if we have properly understood scripture.




And who has determined the proper context? Whos exegesis is sound and complete?




Yet a "spiritual" intepretation can be demonstrated as well as an accompanied "symbolic" meaning. Many church Fathers spoke of both. Who determines what is correct and conclusive?

Q

It is "Divine Guidance" that leads us in the proper way to interpret Scripture. (Or haven't you read anything I posted here??:confused: ) The Holy Spirit inspired the writing of the Scriptures and guides us through the interpretation of it. We know when it is right because the Holy Spirit has inspired the writing of the Scriptures to be interpreted in this way. He certainly would not lead us in a direction that would be contradictory.

[Qoheleth]

It is "Divine Guidance" that leads us in the proper way to interpret Scripture. (Or haven't you read anything I posted here??:confused: ) The Holy Spirit inspired the writing of the Scriptures and guides us through the interpretation of it

So, why does the Anglican or Methodist down the street have a different interpretation and all the while being guided by the Holy Spirit as well??


We know when it is right because the Holy Spirit has inspired the writing of the Scriptures to be interpreted in this way

Personally and individually we can claim authority to the right interpretation of scripture, as guided by the Spirit, and all others have falsely intepreted said scripture yet claim the same guidance. Is this right?

How is it that You know this to be true and all others (or those that do not agree with you) wrong?

He certainly would not lead us in a direction that would be contradictory.

Agreed. But there are several thousand Protestant denominations though, and all guided by the same Holy Spirit.

Q

[Jim47]

Again this does not answer the concern.

Everyone who can read, has interpreted scripture according to their understanding. They have been lead to a "guided" interpretation that may differ (and has) from others.

We could spend all night, day, week, month, years debating the scripture and in the end, no agreement. Then both parties retreat to their corners claiming victory and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

So, how do you know who was actually guided by the Spirit?

Q

I apologize for being unable to make this clear, so I'll try an example.

When someone in the news, lets say a cult leader, committs a murder, we know that when he says God told him to do it, thats just not the truth. Because God does not tell us to do such things.

Mostly what I am speaking of are the clear teachings of the bible, although to me almost all of it except OT prophesiy is clear. I say that because my beliefs do not differ from my WELS Church teachings. There have been a couple things I questioned, but after research and study have concluded their teachings were correct.

The things discussed here on this forum are of course very important to me as well. For instance, if I were to doubt God's Word on women serving as Pastors, then I would be afraid of putting my whole faith in jeporady, because if I doubt one part, then Satan will cause me to doubt others.

[Qoheleth]

I apologize for being unable to make this clear, so I'll try an example.


No need to apologize. This is not an east topic and deserves much contemplation.

There have been a couple things I questioned, but after research and study have concluded their teachings were correct.

So, would you say the Holy Spirit guided you, and you are certain of it?

Or was His guidance not needed as the research and study was sufficient?

then I would be afraid of putting my whole faith in jeporady, because if I doubt one part, then Satan will cause me to doubt others.

I understand completely. But would the Holy Spirit not lead us into the correct intepretation if our research and study alone fails to provide the correct answer?

Q

[night2day]

And then when the LCMS and ELS and WELS and the ELCA and others all say that they have the Holy Spirit guiding them and all have differing interpretations...then what? How do we determine then who actually is being faithfully guided and listening to the Holy Spirit? On what basis can we make this judgement?

On what basis can any spiritual matter be discerned but on Scripture itself? Your forget, the Holy Spirit insipired holy men to write what we have come to know of the Bible over the period of 4,000 years. They lived on 1 of 4 continenats. The writers held the occupations of anything from sheepheaders to kings. God is more than capable of preserving His word. And, since He's the sole Author, and not the author of confusion (pun intended), indeed, where does the confusion come from?

Generally, there are 3 ways people read the Bible which accounts for why there are so many denominations, hersies, and conflicting teachings.

1. Outside Revelation -- This would include the papacy, tradition, councils, the charasmatic movement, etc. Perhaps even mystisim which may even reject the Scriptures as God's authoritive word.

2. Human Reason -- Instead of taking the Bible as is, even in difficult to understand passages there's a desire or need to "second guess" what God's intentions or motives are when He hasn't stated. Includes Baptists & the Reformed.

3. Scripture Interprets Scripture -- The Bible has one single objective...to point to Jesus Christ as Humanity's Lord and Savior from sin, death, and Hell. Since we are by nature dead in sin and cannot but our reason or strength come to Jesus Christ the Holy Spirit calls by the Gospel and brings us to faith. (However, unlike other doctrines which attmpt to explain why if we cannot be brought to faith on our own terms....why then we can leave and resist, this leaves the matter as is since God has not chosen to reveal this matter within His word.) The Old Testament points towards the Savior to come, the New Testament points to the Savior who came and will return. Thus, the Bible is to be consided as a whole, not in 66 parts.

As for the 4 Lutheran demoninations you listed, look to the offical stance of those aformentioned churches and see what you find.

LCMS and WELS were within full alter-and-pulpit fellowship at one time if I recall my history right...but it was broken off within the 50s or 60s. From what I know of the differnces, and correct me if I'm wrong someone, they appear more structural to the synod.

Although that's not to say they have no cause to be concerned for the LCMS these days as the president synod president actually questioned at one time the need to focus on purity of doctrine and evangelizing (ie: the Ablaze! thing)...and decided it would be better just to open the church tent. Some of these groups like Daystar and Jesus First allow for Evolution and question over Christ's resurrection... :doh:

As for ELS, it's a conservative break from ELCA isn't it? And even ELCA isn't that old a denomination, but one formed later in the last century by smaller liberal synods which offically didn't take the original scriptures as God's inerrant and infallible word.

Travel further back in time to the birthplace of Lutheranism. Travel furtherback to before Luther was born and God was still setting the scene for the Reformation and maintained a remnant. Further back still...

Point being, the Holy Spirit has always worked through God's word without us needing to try to help Him out to try to tell Him what He should be saying. It doesn't work that way. The fact that there are many denominations is testimony that many have worked feverishly to make it work that way.

[ChiRho]

Q,

Are you arguing that there is no objective truth, or if there is, we have no way of accessing it or knowing it?

Remember, just because someone believes that using a toddler for sexual pleasure is acceptable, does not make it right (morally; not legally).

Demonstrating another's sinful blindness does not prove that the clear Truth is inaccessible to everyone.

When you say "the Church", what do you mean? Basically, it must be individuals, and their interpretations that you are appealing to, for how can a group preform an action?

Slightly Confused,

ChiRho

[Qoheleth]

Are you arguing that there is no objective truth, or if there is, we have no way of accessing it or knowing it?

Of course we may know it as it has been revealed by the Father in the church.

When you say "the Church", what do you mean? Basically, it must be individuals, and their interpretations that you are appealing to, for how can a group preform an action?

"Church" is defined in the Eucharist as delivered by the Holy Spirit down through the ages unto ages.

Q

[ChiRho]

Of course we may know it as it has been revealed by the Father in the church. "Church" is defined in the Eucharist as delivered by the Holy Spirit down through the ages unto ages.


This does not answer my question. I am no better off understanding what you mean than before.

[revjpw]

So, why does the Anglican or Methodist down the street have a different interpretation and all the while being guided by the Holy Spirit as well??

If their "interpretation" can be found in error from the Scriptures themselves, then how could they have been guided by the Holy Spirit? The point is, they couldn't have been. The Holy Spirit cannot guide one into error.


Personally and individually we can claim authority to the right interpretation of scripture, as guided by the Spirit, and all others have falsely intepreted said scripture yet claim the same guidance. Is this right?

Anyone can claim whatever they want. I can claim to be the King of England. If you don't believe me, then ask me and I will tell you. Does my say-so make it true? Of course not!

How is it that You know this to be true and all others (or those that do not agree with you) wrong?

Scripture interprets Scripture.

Agreed. But there are several thousand Protestant denominations though, and all guided by the same Holy Spirit.

Again, if their "interpretation" is found to be contradictory to the Scriptures, then they could not have been guided by the Holy Spirit.

[Tetzel]

This doesn't fly with what I experience. The invitation to communion specifically says "All baptized and pentient Christians who believe in the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ are welcome to come forth to take communion."

My experience was similar. Generally nothing was said at all, but on occasions where there were likely to be lot's of guests ( such as a funeral of someone who's extended family was mostly Catholic), the pastor said "we invite all those who believe in the presence of Christ's blood and body in with and under the bread and wine to receive the sacrament" I don't think people were listening too well though, I saw a lot of people from that Catholic extended family take communion

[SPALATIN]

Probably one reason why Communion is not offered at Weddings and Funerals very often.

[Qoheleth]

If their "interpretation" can be found in error from the Scriptures themselves, then how could they have been guided by the Holy Spirit? The point is, they couldn't have been. The Holy Spirit cannot guide one into error.

Yet by and with scripture, they will show you your error. Likewise others will say that you have not beeen the one guided by the Holy Spirit.

We are back at the beginning again.

Scripture interprets Scripture.

And so we are running in circles. This answer is not sufficient given the discord within the Body.

Again, if their "interpretation" is found to be contradictory to the Scriptures, then they could not have been guided by the Holy Spirit.

And by what authority do you have the right to determine they are in contradiction with scripture (they to using "scripture interprets scripture" exegesis), and have not been lead by the Spirit?

Are you saying the source interprets the source and therefore no Divine guidance needed? Please explain how this works?

Q

[night2day]

...by what authority do you have the right to determine they are in contradiction with scripture (they to using "scripture interprets scripture" exegesis), and have not been lead by the Spirit?

Not everyone who says they go by scripture alone, does. They use human reason, tradition, mysticisim, etc or whatever.

When it comes to God's word, there is no such thing as "which interpretation is the right interpretation". God's the sole Author of His word. He decides what He means and what it says. We don't. Therefore, those who are in disagreement and believe they can decide for themselves how they can simply pick and choose what they what to wish to believe from the Bible are simply wrong and playing with fire.

Since it is God who Authored the Scriptures, as it was written and inspired by holy men, it is God that gives His word the believer in Christ to responsibility to learn to spiritually discern.

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
Hebrews 4:12

[SPALATIN]

Q,

Is your argument that all the denominations claim the same thing in regards to being led by the Holy Spirit so how can we know that we have the greater truth? If not correct me. I am asking also because of something you posted on GT.

[Qoheleth]

Q,

Is your argument that all the denominations claim the same thing in regards to being led by the Holy Spirit so how can we know that we have the greater truth? If not correct me. I am asking also because of something you posted on GT.

Yes, In a nut shell.

Q

[Jim47]

No need to apologize. This is not an east topic and deserves much contemplation.



So, would you say the Holy Spirit guided you, and you are certain of it?

Or was His guidance not needed as the research and study was sufficient?



Q

AS for The Holy Spirit guiding me? I try to make my decisions based around scripture and what God has given us in knowing right from wrong, this is of course after prayer. Do I make mistakes? I'm quite certain I do sometimes. I think God still teaches us by the mistakes we make, but He also gives us a chance to make things right.

I understand completely. But would the Holy Spirit not lead us into the correct intepretation if our research and study alone fails to provide the correct answer?


This is only my opinion and I am "not" basing it on Lutherans but I am also "not excluding" them. I think the biggest problem we have today is too many people claim to be getting guidance from The Holy Spirit, and they may very well have good intentions and a wonderful faith, BUT what they fail to do is analize their feelings or guidance and compare it to what God has given us in "His Scriptures".

We can pray and pray but I don't believe that God shows too many people "signs", and the reason for that is, unlike the people of the OT era, we have a completed work of God's Word and a "Whole-Holy Bible". There is nothing lacking in His Word to guide us in any situation. Yes, we will still have questions and doubts, but in many cases the things we agonize over are neither forbidden or commanded, (I can't spell adiopfria :blush: )

[revjpw]

Are you saying the source interprets the source and therefore no Divine guidance needed? Please explain how this works?

No! The Holy Spirit guides to the one and only truth.
I have provided an example earlier. Perhpas you didn't see it, so I will repeat it here:
For example, when talking about the Real Presence of the Lord's Supper, there is an immediate context of the account of the Last Supper and the Words of Institution. There is a greater context in St. Pauls teaching of the Sacrament in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11. And there is an even greater context in the 6th chapter of John's Gospel. When these things are read and applied in the proper context, there is no way that anyone can derive a "symbolic only" interpretation of the Lord's Supper from the Scriptures.

Those who insist that the Lord's Supper is merely symbolic do not have the one and only truth. Therefore they could not have arrived at their "interpretation" by the Holy Spirit. They may be able to use some Scripture passages to "prove" their point, but the fact remains that in its proper interpretation, authored by the Holy Spirit Himself, there is only one true interpretation.

Now, do orthodox Lutherans have that one and only true interpretation? Perhaps not in its entirety, but we are certainly light years closer to it than the "protestants."

Here I stand. I can do no other.

[ChiRho]

Now, do orthodox Lutherans have that one and only true interpretation? Perhaps not in its entirety, but we are certainly light years closer to it than the "protestants."


Could you explain what you mean here?

[VeryTiredGirl]

I do a fair bit of traveling and this has always been my practice too. I try to arrive plenty early enough to speak with the pastor or an elder. And, like you I have seen the response run the full range from "thank you--you are welcome to commune with us" :) to "why are you bothering me with this". :eek: :doh:

BTW...I had probably one of the best "pre-service" conversations with an LCC pastor in Waterloo, Ontario. GREAT Lutheran church. Super guy--very pastoral. I was blessed to have attended service there and communed at their table.

Rose

Waterloo...we're sending one of our vicars there for his year of intense parish immersion. I hope it works out well for him.

The one pastor I spoke to actually asked me catechism questions! I felt like I was undergoing an inquisition. Scared me half to death. I'd love to visit that parish again, but I'm almost scared to do so.

Another church I went to told me not to 'bother' the pastor before the service, that as long as I was Lutheran, it wasn't a big deal. I didn't quite feel right, but I did still go to Communion.

[revjpw]

Another church I went to told me not to 'bother' the pastor before the service, that as long as I was Lutheran, it wasn't a big deal. I didn't quite feel right, but I did still go to Communion.


That sound like a Missouri Synod parish (albeit a poor practice). The WELS would have specifically asked if you were WELS and the ELCA wouldn't have cared whether or not you were Lutheran.

[PurpleBunny]

That sound like a Missouri Synod parish (albeit a poor practice). The WELS would have specifically asked if you were WELS and the ELCA wouldn't have cared whether or not you were Lutheran.

That makes sense, as LCC and LCMS are quite similar and are in communion fellowship.

My pastor will speak to anyone he doesn't recognize at the altar during communion unless he's seen one of the lay ministers/elders speak to the person or he's spoken to them before service. He invites everyone who isn't baptized and confirmed in the Lutheran church to receive a blessing at the altar.

[UberLutheran]

Well..., the ELCA, through their full altar/pulpit fellowship with Reformed church bodies who reject the Real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament, does not hold the Sacrament in high regard, especially when they allow those who reject the Body of the Lord in the Sacrament to commune at their communion rails and thus commit sin against the Body of Christ as taught in 1 Corinthians 11.


This is another one that we've been around and around with.:doh:

...is because of having to deal with misinformed -- and highly contentious statements by people who believe they have the right to speak for every member of the ELCA with regards to comments about "not holding the Sacrament in high regard".

Every single member of every ELCA church I know -- and I've been to a good many of them -- holds the Sacrament in very, VERY high regard.

Here's a suggestion: if you all don't think members of the ELCA are sufficiently "Lutheran" enough or "Christian" enough to fellowship here, then make a statement saying that members of the ELCA are not welcome here and have it posted as stickie for all new members to see.

I fellowship primarily over on the Anglican forum, for the simple reason that I'm not expected to apologize or "atone" for being a member of the ELCA.

[Protoevangel]

...is because of having to deal with misinformed -- and highly contentious statements by people who believe they have the right to speak for every member of the ELCA with regards to comments about "not holding the Sacrament in high regard".

Every single member of every ELCA church I know -- and I've been to a good many of them -- holds the Sacrament in very, VERY high regard.

Here's a suggestion: if you all don't think members of the ELCA are sufficiently "Lutheran" enough or "Christian" enough to fellowship here, then make a statement saying that members of the ELCA are not welcome here and have it posted as stickie for all new members to see.

I fellowship primarily over on the Anglican forum, for the simple reason that I'm not expected to apologize or "atone" for being a member of the ELCA.This is completely untrue and unfair. Nowhere does Rev say anything about any individual ELCA member or members. I have had both agreements and strong dissagreements with Rev, and never has my ELCA membership been made an issue. Rev was not in any way maligning anyone personally. If you take every statement that you don't like as a personal attack, then the Episcopalian forum would probably be a more comfortable place for you. Here, we're not expected to act like we agree when we really don't.

[UberLutheran]

We all have CHRIST.... don't we?

Are we Christian enough to accept the idea that others may have Christ, too -- in fact, a very personal relationship with Christ -- and not be members of our own particular Lutheran synod? Or that people can be Christians without being Lutheran at all?

[UberLutheran]

LORD help me I think I going LCMS on this one...I don't mind "sharing" communion with folks, but I think I'm leaning with them at least believing the same thing about communion that I believe...I don't mind sharing with folks who believe in real presence...but with folks who say it's "just a symbol"...that kinda doesn't fly with me...doesn't make sence...I mean if I believe that the bread is REALLY CHRISTS body and the person next to me thinks it's a SYMBOL of CHRIST'S body are we really sharing the same meal?...

Before Communion, our pastor announces that any baptized person who believes in the Real Presence is welcome to share Communion with us.

[RedneckAnglican]

Before Communion, our pastor announces that any baptized person who believes in the Real Presence is welcome to share Communion with us.

I realized that after I posted...my pastor says the same thing...wouldn't be right to just edit it out...

I started this thread because we have all been at each others throats now for about 2 weeks...I really wanted to know what unites us under the banner of the rose...i am very disenchanted right now...i apologize for starting this thread and continuing the bickering...sorry...

[Protoevangel]

I realized that after I posted...my pastor says the same thing...wouldn't be right to just edit it out...

I started this thread because we have all been at each others throats now for about 2 weeks...I really wanted to know what unites us under the banner of the rose...i am very disenchanted right now...i apologize for starting this thread and continuing the bickering...sorry...It's all good RedneckLutheran. What family dosen't squabble? ;) If you think this is bad, don't eeeeeeever poke your nose into Lutherquest. Those guys scare me. :D

[RedneckAnglican]

It's all good RedneckLutheran. What family dosen't squabble? ;) If you think this is bad, don't eeeeeeever poke your nose into Lutherquest. Those guys scare me. :D

after you mentioned that the first time I went over there for about 2 hours...good golly...you almost have to stipulate knives on the tables over there!...It's just not safe!...

[Protoevangel]

Did I say that before? Oops, sorry. I wasn't trying to repeat myself. Just too many burnrd out brain cells from my hard-partying days. :)

[gtsecc]

Wow, this is just like the Anglican board! :thumbsup:

[UberLutheran]

Wow, this is just like the Anglican board! :thumbsup:


From what I've seen, Anglicans are much better at knowing how to disagree agreeably.

[ByzantineDixie]

From what I've seen, Anglicans are much better at knowing how to disagree agreeably.

Duh! They are Anglicans of genteel origins. We are Lutherans of barbaric origins...now exactly which group would you expect to disagree agreeably? ;)

Seriously though...we are Lutherans! Martin would have understood.... (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=15355528&postcount=77)

[SPALATIN]

Are we Christian enough to accept the idea that others may have Christ, too -- in fact, a very personal relationship with Christ -- and not be members of our own particular Lutheran synod? Or that people can be Christians without being Lutheran at all?

I would never doubt the fact that you have Christ. But how seriously do you take the doctrines and confessions that faith is based on? My experience with ELCA churches has been that they give lip service to the Book of Concord, but as far as holding to them fast they hold to them loosely and when they don't agree with a world view they are tossed out on the street as intolerant views.

The Church should not EVER compromise to the world and the flesh.

So as far as your faith in Christ that is not in question here, but your understanding of what that faith encompasses may be challenged every now and then.

[purpleunicorn_Andi]

Book of Concord.... I thought it was the Bible we are suppose to base our lives on

[Protoevangel]

Hi purpleunicorn_Andi,

Of course it is. Scripture is the only source and norm for teaching and doctrine. When we speak of holding to the teachings of the confessions (Book of Concord), it is because the confessions testify truly to Scripture. Any authority in the confessions has it's roots in Holy Scripture.

[purpleunicorn_Andi]

sorry if I seem ignorant, I've only been in "high" church denominations for about 6 years...

the majority of my life I was baptist, then became methodist for about 8 years or so... episcopal for about 6 years, and will be officially Lutheran on the 22nd of this month. I was baptist the longest...and occasionally my baptist prejudices come out. although my experiences with the other churches has made my uncomfortable in baptist churches because of their lack of women being involved in the church service...(other than music) (don't start with the arguments please just explaining my feelings)

[Protoevangel]

sorry if I seem ignorant, I've only been in "high" church denominations for about 6 years...

the majority of my life I was baptist, then became methodist for about 8 years or so... episcopal for about 6 years, and will be officially Lutheran on the 22nd of this month. I was baptist the longest...and occasionally my baptist prejudices come out. although my experiences with the other churches has made my uncomfortable in baptist churches because of their lack of women being involved in the church service...(other than music) (don't start with the arguments please just explaining my feelings):hug:

[purpleunicorn_Andi]

:hug: thanks for the hug :)
that's something I miss from the church I grew up in...the minister told us not to leave the church with out hugging atleast three people...I've always been a big hugger :)

[UberLutheran]

Duh! They are Anglicans of genteel origins. We are Lutherans of barbaric origins...now exactly which group would you expect to disagree agreeably? ;)

Seriously though...we are Lutherans! Martin would have understood.... (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=15355528&postcount=77)

So I believe these rules take precedence:

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23 gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

and

But receive him who is weak in faith, not for judging thoughts.
2 One man has faith to eat all things, but he who is weak eats herbs.
3 Don't let him who eats despise him who doesn't eat. Don't let him who doesn't eat judge him who eats, for God has received him.
4 Who are you who judge the servant of another? To his own lord he stands or falls. Yes, he will be made to stand, for God has power to make him stand.
5 One man esteems one day above another. Another esteems every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind.
6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks. He who doesn't eat, to the Lord he doesn't eat, and gives God thanks.
7 For none of us lives to himself, and none dies to himself.
8 For if we live, we live to the Lord. Or if we die, we die to the Lord. If therefore we live or die, we are the Lord's.
9 For to this end Christ died, rose, and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.
10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
11 For it is written, "'As I live,' says the Lord, 'to me every knee will bow. Every tongue will confess to God.'"
12 So then each one of us will give account of himself to God.
13 Therefore Let's not judge one another any more, but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block in his brother's way, or an occasion of falling.
14 I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself; except that to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
15 Yet if because of food your brother is grieved, you walk no longer in love. Don't destroy with your food him for whom Christ died.
16 Then don't let your good be slandered,
17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.
18 For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men.
19 So then, let us follow after things which make for peace, and things whereby we may build one another up.
20 Don't overthrow God's work for food's sake. All things indeed are clean, however it is evil for that man who creates a stumbling block by eating.
21 It is good not to eat meat, drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles, is offended, or is made weak.
22 Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who doesn't judge himself in that which he approves.
23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because it isn't of faith; and whatever is not of faith is sin.
24 Now to him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept in silence through eternal times,
25 but now is revealed, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, is made known to all the nations to obedience of faith;
26 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever! Amen.

And we all know very well that Paul isn't referring only to food in this passage.

Being a Lutheran myself, I am more than aware that many of us Lutherans place a VERY high value on "being right" and "doctrinal correctness".

Given the choice of "being right" or "doing as Christ would do", I am not willing to shatter the faith of another person just so I can have the satisfaction of "being right".

Remember: the Pharisees were noted for being "right", too -- and their observance of "correct doctrine" was beyond repute.

[Protoevangel]

Given the choice of "being right" or "doing as Christ would do", I am not willing to shatter the faith of another person just so I can have the satisfaction of "being right".
You make a good point here. What good its right doctrine when you use it to beat people over the head. On the other hand, we are told to judge teaching, and hold to sound doctrine. I know, though, that I for one could often do so with more gentleness.


Remember: the Pharisees were noted for being "right", too -- and their observance of "correct doctrine" was beyond repute.
Actually, the Pharisees ignored correct doctrine in favor of their made-up rules that were not at all Scriptural.

[revjpw]

Actually, the Pharisees ignored correct doctrine in favor of their made-up rules that were not at all Scriptural.


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...:scratch:

[AngelusSax]

Actually, the Pharisees ignored correct doctrine in favor of their made-up rules that were not at all Scriptural.

I've heard that before. I don't get that from reading any translation of the Bible I have either.

[Jim47]

Actually, the Pharisees ignored correct doctrine in favor of their made-up rules that were not at all Scriptural.


I'm guessing the following scripture is what Dan had in mind, and I certainly do agree with Dan.

Mt 15:1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, Mt 15:2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!" Mt 15:3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?

Mt 15:4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’

Mt 15:5 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’

Mt 15:6 he is not to ‘honor his father’’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. Mt 15:7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: Mt 15:8 " ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Mt 15:9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’" Mt 15:10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand.

Another scripture Jesus spoke against them:

Mt 23:25 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

Mt 23:27 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

Mt 23:29 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!

Mt 23:33 "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.

Mt 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’’"

[Protoevangel]

Did you know that the Orthodox Jewish community of today are basically decendents of the Pharisees of the first century? Have you ever heard of the Talmud? The collections upon collections of writings the Jews call the Oral Torah? While I am no expert, I understand that portions of the Seder Nezigin date from as far back as 200 B.C. in oral form. This Talmud is the collection of rules, regulations and commentary that was made up in the place of God's law to insure that the Jews couldn't even get close to breaking a commandment. Their rules and regulations were "fences" they placed around the law. There are over 900 of these "fence" regulations.

Just one small example:

When Jesus plucked the ear of corn and ate it on the Sabbath, He did not break the law. However, the Pharisees condemned him because He had trampled their "fences". Their thinking was that if Jesus hadn't already broken the law, His attitude and actions in violating fences could lead to lawlessness. The fence system was based upon a "could lead to" mentality. Gee do we ever hear that in this forum?

Did Jesus ever break the Law of God? No, He broke the man-made laws of the Pharisees.

What about Matthew 15:1-9?Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread."

He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying, "Honor your father and your mother'; and, "He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say, "Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God"--then he need not honor his father or mother.' Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:
"These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
And honor Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men."'

And again in Mark 7:1-13

The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)

So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?"

He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.' You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."


So... You see, the Pharisees ignored correct doctrine in favor of their made-up rules that were not at all Scriptural.

Sorry for not being more clear earlier and actually letting you know what I was talking about. :blush:


Another thought this brings up for me. Look at Jesus' strong language. I wonder if He would have been accused of violating Galatians 5:22-23... Calling people hypocrites, fools, dull, etc. ;)

[Protoevangel]

You beat me to it Jim! I just took too long writing my reply! That'll learn me to try and formulate a thought this late, after I should have been asleep already!!!

Yes, I really started my post that long ago! I need some sleep now!

[Jim47]

You beat me to it Jim! I just took too long writing my reply! That'll learn me to try and formulate a thought this late, after I should have been asleep already!!!

Yes, I really started my post that long ago! I need some sleep now!


Sorry Dan, I had no idea you were working on a reply. Now I see I should have just made it "my reply".

I found your history lesson on the Jewish fences interesting, I had never heard it explained to that detail before.

I guess we are like minded anyway? But that may not be a good think cause I've been accused of losing mine. :thumbsup:

[Phoebe]

The Talmud could also be the law that Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 14.34.

[Protoevangel]

Sorry Dan, I had no idea you were working on a reply. Now I see I should have just made it "my reply".

I found your history lesson on the Jewish fences interesting, I had never heard it explained to that detail before.

I guess we are like minded anyway? But that may not be a good think cause I've been accused of losing mine. :thumbsup: :D It's all good Jim. I appreciate that you took the time to show that you understood what I was talking about, oftentimes I wonder if I am making any sense at all, or if I'm just babbling.

Your last line above shows even further, just how like minded we really are. ;)

[SPALATIN]

:D
Your last line above shows even further, just how like minded we really are. ;)

Now that's scary....:o

[BigNorsk]

Reading the references to the Pharisees is an interesting Bible Study. Here is a list of verses where the Pharisees are mentioned.

Mat_3:7; Mat_5:20; Mat_9:11; Mat_9:14; Mat_9:34; Mat_12:2; Mat_12:14; Mat_12:24; Mat_12:38; Mat_15:1; Mat_15:12; Mat_16:1; Mat_16:6; Mat_16:11; Mat_16:12; Mat_19:3; Mat_21:45; Mat_22:15; Mat_22:34; Mat_22:41; Mat_23:2; Mat_23:13; Mat_23:15; Mat_23:23; Mat_23:25; Mat_23:26; Mat_23:27; Mat_23:29; Mat_27:62; Mar_2:16; Mar_2:18; Mar_2:24; Mar_3:6; Mar_7:1; Mar_7:3; Mar_7:5; Mar_8:11; Mar_8:15; Mar_10:2; Mar_12:13; Luk_5:17; Luk_5:21; Luk_5:30; Luk_5:33; Luk_6:2; Luk_6:7; Luk_7:30; Luk_7:36; Luk_7:37; Luk_7:39; Luk_11:37; Luk_11:38; Luk_11:39; Luk_11:42; Luk_11:43; Luk_11:53; Luk_12:1; Luk_13:31; Luk_14:1; Luk_14:3; Luk_15:2; Luk_16:14; Luk_17:20; Luk_18:10; Luk_18:11; Luk_18:14; Luk_19:39; Joh_1:24; Joh_3:1; Joh_4:1; Joh_7:32; Joh_7:45; Joh_7:47; Joh_7:48; Joh_8:3; Joh_8:13; Joh_9:13; Joh_9:15; Joh_9:16; Joh_9:40; Joh_11:46; Joh_11:47; Joh_11:57; Joh_12:19; Joh_12:42; Joh_18:3; Act_5:34; Act_15:5; Act_23:6; Act_23:7; Act_23:8; Act_23:9; Act_26:5; Phi_3:5;

Marv

[night2day]

I'm guessing the following scripture is what Dan had in mind, and I certainly do agree with Dan.

Mt 15:1-10...Mt 23:25-39

I was thinking more regarding when God gave the cerimonial/religious, civil, and moral laws (the last of which never went out of effect) to the ancient Hebrews it was basically to help them them become a seperate people. A nation that was to meant to point to the coming Savior just as He had been continuously promised.

Instead, religious leaders rose and took the laws and made them an end to themselves to form a works-based racial religion. Rather far from the actual intent God had.

But isn't that just going back to the Garden of Eden again with the ole "God's Way or my way" question Satan first asked Eve?