Confession-olotry?

[ctobola]

One of the trends I've noticed -- particuarly among the more conservative groups within the Lutheran family -- is the tendency to take the Lutheran Confessions on the same level as the Creeds... and in some cases on the same level as Scripture.

Is this a problem? I've always considered the Confessions to be a useful tool for understanding and application of Scripture, but they are not inspired in the same sense that Scripture is.

What do the rest of you in the ELCA/ELCIC think of this trend?

-Cloy

[KagomeShuko]

I don't like the trend AT ALL. I've really realized it in the other Lutheran branches. Scriptures are the highest authority, period. The confessions are helpful (I can say, I'm Lutheran because it best fits my beliefs. . .but, such things that Luther wrote about the seat of the papacy being the anti-christ, well, my position is that I don't know because Revelation is in code and it says not to add or take away from what is written in that book, and to say that it definitely says that the seat of that papacy is the anti-Christ is adding to it).

It makes me feel very awful when thinking that such a book would be considered EQUAL to the scriptures.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[RedneckAnglican]

the Book of Concord should be a guide to help to understand the scriptures...I don't mind using what Luther wrote to open up an understanding to the word, but I'm seeing people using isogesis and reading thier own meanings into the confessions like some people read thier own meanings into the scripture...I don't know the BOC as well as I should, but is there anything in there about a woman not being Ordained?...the way I look at it is it's GOD who ordains...the Church merely licences...my 2 cents...(probably not worth that...)

[Protoevangel]

One of the trends I've noticed -- particuarly among the more conservative groups within the Lutheran family -- is the tendency to take the Lutheran Confessions on the same level as the Creeds... and in some cases on the same level as Scripture.

Is this a problem? I've always considered the Confessions to be a useful tool for understanding and application of Scripture, but they are not inspired in the same sense that Scripture is.

What do the rest of you in the ELCA/ELCIC think of this trend?

-Cloy
Elevating the Confessions, or even the Creeds, to the same level as Scripture would certianly be a momentous error. The Confessions testify to Scripture, not add to them. They do exactly the same thing as the Creeds. The Creeds only authority is due to the fact that they clearly reflect that which is taught in Scripture. The Creeds are no more inspired in their nature than the Confessions.

I would be interested in seeing a clear example of someone here holding the Confessions on the "same level" as Scripture. I have not seen that. Actually, I see this thread as being little more than thinly-veiled bashing of the more Confessional synods. Please proove me wrong; not by argument, but by example.

[ctobola]

Dan,

While I haven't seen anyone explicitly claim that the Confessions are of the same ilk as Scripture, but I do see the following...

Writers frequently claiming to hold to Scripture and the Confessions, as if they were on par with each other. One of our more conservative brethren (as opposed to sistren?) recently noted that, "For this matter I hold not to a synod or local congregation but to God's word and the Confessions."

Additionally, the LCMS/WELS penchant for close communion doesn't draw directly from Scripture, but takes one portion of the Confessions completely out of content (I believe) and then applies it as if it is authoritative in it's own right. (It's one thing to use isolated Scripture verses... what does it mean that we do the same to the Confessions.)

-Cloy



Elevating the Confessions, or even the Creeds, to the same level as Scripture would certianly be a momentous error. The Confessions testify to Scripture, not add to them. They do exactly the same thing as the Creeds. The Creeds only authority is due to the fact that they clearly reflect that which is taught in Scripture. The Creeds are no more inspired in their nature than the Confessions.

I would be interested in seeing a clear example of someone here holding the Confessions on the "same level" as Scripture. I have not seen that. Actually, I see this thread as being little more than thinly-veiled bashing of the more Confessional synods. Please proove me wrong; not by argument, but by example.

[ctobola]

Here are my two cents...

The "grand heuristic" (thought-provoking event) for me occurred back when I was doing youth work in Seattle. There was a young woman involved in our youth group who attended a congregation called the "Church of Christ" or the "Christian Church."

The leaders of her congregation used this name because they considered their beliefs to be pure, unadulterated Christianity. She claimed that "we don't follow the words of Martin Luther or any human being -- we only follow the Word of God that He gave us in Scripture" (or something similar).

When I asked her HOW they followed the Word of God, she recited a laundry list of how they correctly interpreted Scripture. ("We use clear passages to intrepret difficult passages...," etc.) Try as I might, I never did find her list anywhere between Genesis and Revelations. Apparently, this group DID follow the words of a human being.

In other words, they desperately wanted to be "right" and "orthdox" -- so they convinced themselves that they could view Scripture objectively and completely accurately. How silly.

I tend to think that those of us in the "named" denominations (Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians) are much more honest. We're willing to declare the pre-conceived notions we bring to the table when we sit down to read Scripture. (As a good social scientist, I think that's essential.) Ergo, we announce our biases -- as Lutherans we declare that we will approach Scripture in the manner laid out by the Confessions.

Does that mean that the Confessions are authoritative? Sort of... but not in the same way that Scripture is authoritative.

The Confessions are OUR annoucement of our priorities, findings and biases when it comes to reading Scripture. The Confessions are the words of fallible, errant people who come view Scripture through a particular set of "glasses." (Not to be confused with Joseph Smith's wacky gold glasses. :P )

So, if we want to be people of integrity... we should generally stick to the document that we hold up as our gameplan for reading Scripture.

But can we change our gameplan? Is it possible to discover that the words of the Confessions were influenced or limited by the time in which they were written? Is it possible to revisit the ideas and priorities presented in the Confessions in light of the Church as it exists in the 21st century?

I tend to think the answer to all of these questions is yes; but I also understand that a radical departure from what we have done in the past is unwise.

For example, I tend to think that some of the items laid out under the heading of "Good Order" could be considered a product of their times. When looking at this portion of the Augsburg Confession, I think it's fair to consider the following:
1. they reflect the only congregational structure that Luther had experienced (i.e., the Roman Catholic version)
2. these rules may have been influenced by the peasant uprising and other radical, thoughtless activities at that time
3. they fail to consider some of the alternate congregational structures presented in Scripture, such as the one used by the Presbyterians -- which appeared much later
4. they address a time when the lay people were generally uneducated, illiterate and highly superstituous; typically, the priest was the only one in the congregation who was educated
5. they may have been influenced by the desire of early Lutherans to avoid too much chaos, given the radical theological changes they had already presented.

In short, are these rules as applicable in 2005 as they were in the 16th century?

I'd appreciate hearing other thoughts.

-Cloy

[ctobola]

Scott,

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I noted the contrasting views of the more conservative Lutheran bodies, and ask my fellow ELCA/ELCIC members where they fall on the issue.

I noted that there is a tendency to mention Scripture and the Confessions in the same sentence, which could imply that they are equal footing. Your use of this sentence construction happened to be the first one I came across. (I chose NOT to mention your name out of courtesy. In my opinion, this practice seems to be fairly commonplace.... and I didn't want to imply that you were the only one doing it. I may have done it myself in the heat of discussion.)

Be that as it may, this is an ELCA/ELCIC forum -- we are discussing where we stand in relation to other bodies. Yes, we might be critical of other bodies. We will also likely be critical of our own denominiational actions.

Regardless, we don't need your assistance. I know that is difficult for you to comprehend, but you are not welcome to come to this forum and help "correct" us.

You have a set of presuppositions about what it means to be Lutheran -- I respect that. I have my own presuppositions; but I don't wander into the LCMS/WELS group and freak out because you won't accept my biases; I'm loathe to even do that in the "open" Lutheran group. Please do us the same courtesy.

In Christ, -C


Cloy,

Why don't you take this to the General Lutheran Forum and let those of us you are accusing defend ourselves. Seeing as it was my quote that you used to make your point I think that if you don't it will be as Danhead says a thinly veiled bashing of our synod. This is a very serious allegation to make and I am offended that you put it here so it can't be defended in the way that it should be.

All bets are off from now on what is discussed in the LCMS forum. This really ticks me off.

[Protoevangel]

Writers frequently claiming to hold to Scripture and the Confessions, as if they were on par with each other.
Like I asked, give me an example. I don't think you can. I have already asked for an example of "someone here holding the Confessions on the ‘same level’ as Scripture" as you first accused, which you have not even attempted to provide. "For this matter I hold not to a synod or local congregation but to God's word and the Confessions" does not even come close to prove your point. I believe you are bearing false witness here. Please show me I am wrong.

Additionally, the LCMS/WELS penchant for close communion doesn't draw directly from Scripture, but takes one portion of the Confessions completely out of content (I believe) and then applies it as if it is authoritative in it's own right.
Their position has been demonstrated and argued from Scripture. You and I both would disagree on the way they interpret that piece of Scripture and with the broad way they apply it, but this is certianlt appears to be another violation of the eighth Commandment, to accuse them as you are doing.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything.
You are clearly accusing. You may not have started off by accusing any individual, but you certianly have been accusing a great number of people by inference. From the title of the thread, to the OP, to your response to my first post, and the way you used Scott's quote, which brings up your "I chose NOT to mention your name out of courtesy" statement - that's quite the joke. I am sure no one who frequents this board had any question as to who exactly you were talking about.

I noted that there is a tendency to mention Scripture and the Confessions in the same sentence, which could imply that they are equal footing.
If I say, "I believe what Scriptures and C.S. Lewis said about X", show me how that means I believe that C.S. Lewis is on the "same level" as Scripture. It is the same with the Confessions. You are inventing this, building up a straw man position that no one here represents, and are showing everyone how easy it is to tear down this straw man.

[ctobola]

Dan,

It wasn't my intent to indict anyone. I perceived that something was happening and I asked for comments and thoughts from other ELCA/ELCIC people.

As I noted when I replied, I didn't have any explicit examples to provide -- just anecedotal examples that I was trying to understand... and maybe I misunderstood them.

I am personally wrestling with the role of the Confessions -- and I think I laid out my own thoughts and frustrations in an earlier post.

If my post was hurtful to anyone -- including Scott -- then I apologize.

-Cloy



Like I asked, give me an example. I don't think you can. I have already asked for an example of "someone here holding the Confessions on the ‘same level’ as Scripture" as you first accused, which you have not even attempted to provide. "For this matter I hold not to a synod or local congregation but to God's word and the Confessions" does not even come close to prove your point. I believe you are bearing false witness here. Please show me I am wrong.


Their position has been demonstrated and argued from Scripture. You and I both would disagree on the way they interpret that piece of Scripture and with the broad way they apply it, but this is certianlt appears to be another violation of the eighth Commandment, to accuse them as you are doing.


You are clearly accusing. You may not have started off by accusing any individual, but you certianly have been accusing a great number of people by inference. From the title of the thread, to the OP, to your response to my first post, and the way you used Scott's quote, which brings up your "I chose NOT to mention your name out of courtesy" statement - that's quite the joke. I am sure no one who frequents this board had any question as to who exactly you were talking about.


If I say, "I believe what Scriptures and C.S. Lewis said about X", show me how that means I believe that C.S. Lewis is on the "same level" as Scripture. It is the same with the Confessions. You are inventing this, building up a straw man position that no one here represents, and are showing everyone how easy it is to tear down this straw man.

[Protoevangel]

Dan,

It wasn't my intent to indict anyone. I perceived that something was happening and I asked for comments and thoughts from other ELCA/ELCIC people.

As I noted when I replied, I didn't have any explicit examples to provide -- just anecedotal examples that I was trying to understand... and maybe I misunderstood them.

I am personally wrestling with the role of the Confessions -- and I think I laid out my own thoughts and frustrations in an earlier post.

If my post was hurtful to anyone -- including Scott -- then I apologize.

-Cloy
I for one, forgive you, and in the very same breath ask for your forgiveness for my own breach of the eighth Commandment in this thread.

In the Confessions, we are taught the meaning of the eighth Commandment thusly:
"We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, [think and] speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything."

I did not put the best possible construction on everything you said. I said what I said to make a point, but I know I could have been more constructive in how I made that point. I am sorry.

[SPALATIN]

Cloy,

Apology accepted.

Scott

[Tetzel]

One of the trends I've noticed -- particuarly among the more conservative groups within the Lutheran family -- is the tendency to take the Lutheran Confessions on the same level as the Creeds... and in some cases on the same level as Scripture.

Is this a problem? I've always considered the Confessions to be a useful tool for understanding and application of Scripture, but they are not inspired in the same sense that Scripture is.

What do the rest of you in the ELCA/ELCIC think of this trend?

-Cloy

Creeds and confessions are no different. Both derive their authority from their accordance to scripture.

[Qoheleth]

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.


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


Q

[Willy]

Confession-olatry is similar to bibliolatry. Some people make the Bible their god, saying that it is what they believe in it. Christians don't believe in the Bible. They believe in God. There was a wonderful editorial piece on NPR the other day that was narrated by a Muslim woman. She wanted other Muslims to admit that the Qu'ran in places is not helpful. She wanted her Muslim brothers and sisters to admit that their holy book has problems. Christians would do well to admit the same thing. In so doing we would become more compassionate and more open to the God who is much bigger than a book.

[ctobola]

Three questions that I wrestle with regarding the Confessions...

1. Are they inerrant? If we say yes, doesn't this essentially put them on the same level as Scripture? We certainly don't have the issues related to original source material that we have with Scripture... so we can't even say (as we do with Scripture) that they are inerrent in their original form -- we have the original forms.

2. Are they complete? Do they address all that is needed with regard to the our theology and practice? ... or do changes in the last 500 years (including more accurate Scriptural translations) require is to revisit some things presented in the Confessions?

3. How much of them is a result of cultural context? There are certainly things in Scripture that are a product of the time in which they are written. (e.g., men having short hair, women covering their heads, etc.) What, if anything, in the Confessions is a result of the context in which they were written?


The decision of the ELCA leadership to throw out portions of the Confessions to make the Episicopal Agreement (CCM) happen was utter apostacy; but are there things that we should thoughtfully and deliberately rethink?

I'd like to hear what others think.

-Cloy

[AngelusSax]

The decision of the ELCA leadership to throw out portions of the Confessions to make the Episicopal Agreement (CCM) happen was utter apostacy; but are there things that we should thoughtfully and deliberately rethink?

There may be. I don't think it was necessarily apostasy with the CCM thing though. I didn't see the ELCA running from all Christian faith. Heresy, quite possibly yes. Apostasy... I doubt it. Just to clarify/nitpick.

[ctobola]

Point taken. I was trying to say that the ELCA leadership had to abandon the Lutheran faith (and the Priesthood of All Believers, which I tend to think is central to Lutheranism) in order to make CCM happen.

-Cloy




There may be. I don't think it was necessarily apostasy with the CCM thing though. I didn't see the ELCA running from all Christian faith. Heresy, quite possibly yes. Apostasy... I doubt it. Just to clarify/nitpick.

[Protoevangel]

1. Are they inerrant?
Inerrant maybe, but absolutely not infallable. Inerrant is free from error, it is infallable that means incapable of error. I once heard a person explain it this way: a phone book that has every number and name correct would be inerrant. That does not mean that there is any Divine inspiration that we attribute to that phone book simply because it is correct in all of it's parts.

2. Are they complete?
I don't think they need to be absolutely complete. They are accurate in their exposition of Scripture. That is their scope and that is enough. Everything in the Book of Concord should be looked at in light of the Biblical witness. From my own study, I am convinced that they will not be found wanting.

3. How much of them is a result of cultural context?
I would say the exposition of Scripture in the Book of Concord is true and still relevant today. The Gospel is never out of context regardless of culture.

[mnphysicist]

Just a thought here....

From my readings of Luther years ago. He would have a major fit if his writings were elevated to the same level of scripture. However, this is based upon a 20 year time span, so I could be wrong.

Ron

[ctobola]

Dan,

Thanks for your thoughts -- you bring up some good points.

This whole thing gets a little sticky for me. If we consider the Confessions an "inerrant," "accurate," or "complete" interpretations that's one thing; but since they draw from Scripture, the whole issue of "guilty (or inspired) by association" starts to wander into the equation.

Ultimately, this takes me back to the drawing board -- the Confessions become something we can't question because of their association with Scripture.

I'm not trying to be contrary here -- I'm really wrestling with the issue because there are some things (not major theological statements, mind you) in the Confessions that I have difficulty with... and I'm trying to come to terms with these issues from a Christian and Lutheran perspective.

In Christ, -Cloy

-Cloy


1. Are they inerrant?
Inerrant maybe, but absolutely not infallable. Inerrant is free from error, it is infallable that means incapable of error. I once heard a person explain it this way: a phone book that has every number and name correct would be inerrant. That does not mean that there is any Divine inspiration that we attribute to that phone book simply because it is correct in all of it's parts.

2. Are they complete?
I don't think they need to be absolutely complete. They are accurate in their exposition of Scripture. That is their scope and that is enough. Everything in the Book of Concord should be looked at in light of the Biblical witness. From my own study, I am convinced that they will not be found wanting.

3. How much of them is a result of cultural context?
I would say the exposition of Scripture in the Book of Concord is true and still relevant today. The Gospel is never out of context regardless of culture.

[ChiRho]

Confession-olatry is similar to bibliolatry. Some people make the Bible their god, saying that it is what they believe in it. Christians don't believe in the Bible. They believe in God. There was a wonderful editorial piece on NPR the other day that was narrated by a Muslim woman. She wanted other Muslims to admit that the Qu'ran in places is not helpful. She wanted her Muslim brothers and sisters to admit that their holy book has problems. Christians would do well to admit the same thing. In so doing we would become more compassionate and more open to the God who is much bigger than a book.

How would you know?

[AngelusSax]

How would you know?

I know that, for me, the day I first said "maybe there's more here than what this text says in my English translation" is the day I actually started to care about people other than myself, and started holding out hands instead of pointing fingers.

[Willy]

How would you know?
Sorry,I don't understand the question. I assume it is an attack.

[ChiRho]

Sorry,I don't understand the question. I assume it is an attack.

Well, you make take it however you want, but your post was nothing but an outside attack on Christianity.

[ctobola]

Chi,

Although you may believe that you clearly understand where such lines are drawn, not all of us do.

I know that the idea of "objective truth" is important to you; but in the future, please refrain from coming into the ELCA/ELCIC group and declaring that one of our members isn't a Christian or Lutheran.

Thanks! -Cloy

Well, you make take it however you want, but your post was nothing but an outside attack on Christianity.

[ChiRho]

Chi,

Although you may believe that you clearly understand where such lines are drawn, not all of us do.

I know that the idea of "objective truth" is important to you; but in the future, please refrain from coming into the ELCA/ELCIC group and declaring that one of our members isn't a Christian or Lutheran.

Thanks! -Cloy

So declaring Scripture is equally problematic as the satanic Qu'ran is completely acceptable to you? Even that line is blurry, huh?

By the way, are you the new official spokesman for this subforum? :scratch:

[Protoevangel]

So declaring Scripture is equally problematic as the satanic Qu'ran is completely acceptable to you? Even that line is blurry, huh?
His comment surprised and disgusted me as well. Now, I guess we both know where he is comming from.

By the way, are you the new official spokesman for this subforum? :scratch:
Yea, I think Cloy must be the new "undercover" mod. He has sure been acting like it.

[SPALATIN]

Cloy,

I don't think this is at all out of bounds. I think these are legitimate questions that you should ask yourself and find a definitive answer. To put Christianity on any par with Islam is Syncretic and according to God's word wrong.

[Willy]

Well, you make take it however you want, but your post was nothing but an outside attack on Christianity.
Outside attack, huh? You are so gracious. The thousands of people who relate to my ministry throughout the year would find your attack quite interesting. They wouldn't understand it. But that's okay. Justifying myself frankly is not my job. My justification belongs to God, as does yours. The sooner we all understood this the more compassionate we will become.

[ottaia]

Why are the LCMS people in the ELCA forum?

Please leave.

[Willy]

Now Ottaia, don't be so unhospitable! I don't care if they are here. (they've got to do their heresy hunt somewhere.) I just wish they would learn how to have a respectful conversation.

[ottaia]

I guess the concept of an uninvited guest coming onto the forum and flinging epithets like "Satanic" offends me. Calling the scripture of other faiths "Satanic" offends me. If the faith considers itself satanic, then that is another story. But You were not talking about satanic scripture. It is attitudes like those that were exhibitite that, IMO, lead to the hightened tensions we currenlty feel in the world.

[Willy]

You are right on the money. How did you get so smart?

[Lutherrunner]

This was a response in the "Members Only" thread in LCMS.....I thought it was very fair of Tetzel to post this:

I would not want people coming to my forum either if they were declaring me not to be Lutheran. The kind of stuff I hear about the ELCA in this forum reminds me of the stories I've heard about what people said about Roman Catholics a few decades ago. It's no wonder they don't want to hear from us. Also the amount of contempt displayed for each other in that forum is disgusting. We wouldn't be allowed to go into OBOB and act like that, should we have a right to do that to the ELCA sub-forum?

These sub-forums are supposed to be safe places for us.....yes, we tend to be more liberal in theology and they know that going into the game.....this is not the place for them to be critical and point out perceived errors from their point of view......we should not go over there and criticize them for being conservative and legalistic because that is their safe place and we already know what their beliefs are.....if people want to argue and be critical, they can take it to the main Lutheran forum.....I do wonder what visitors and newbies think of our infighting though......

[Jenna]

Calling the scripture of other faiths "Satanic" offends me. If the faith considers itself satanic, then that is another story. But You were not talking about satanic scripture.

All of the conservative/liberal synod disagreement aside, I don't honestly understand how these type of statements aren't being refuted by everyone- and pointedly by ELCA folks. *scratches head* I'm really confused here.

Anything that draws people away from Christ is satanic. Any god who is not our ONE God is a false god. Any "holy" book of a false religion seeks to draw the hearts of men away from the God who created them. How can that NOT be satanic?? I would be more concern over offense to God, as opposed to my individual sensibilities.

I know this isn't "my proper forum", and I'm on my way out the door. I wouldn't have stopped in here, except that we were directed to the thread by way of another thread in the other subforum. I would normally just keep quiet and read, but I thought that this was important enough to bother mentioning, even if nothing productive comes out of the saying of it.

Have a good night, all.

[Protoevangel]

All of the conservative/liberal synod disagreement aside, I don't honestly understand how these type of statements aren't being refuted by everyone- and pointedly by ELCA folks. *scratches head* I'm really confused here.

Anything that draws people away from Christ is satanic. Any god who is not our ONE God is a false god. Any "holy" book of a false religion seeks to draw the hearts of men away from the God who created them. How can that NOT be satanic?? I would be more concern over offense to God, as opposed to my individual sensibilities.

I know this isn't "my proper forum", and I'm on my way out the door. I wouldn't have stopped in here, except that we were directed to the thread by way of another thread in the other subforum. I would normally just keep quiet and read, but I thought that this was important enough to bother mentioning, even if nothing productive comes out of the saying of it.

Have a good night, all.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Jenna again.

I so admire your gentle manner.

[ctobola]

Jenna,

I understand your concern -- Islam is opposed to Christianity. At the same time, I know several Muslim people who are great individuals. I would say that they are mislead by the Islamic faith, but I also understand that they are created in the image of God and are worthy of respect. Does declaring their holy book Satanic build bridges that would give us opportunities to share our faith with them?

I think it's also important to look at this whole thread in context. Willy was noting that an Islamic woman recently spoke on the radio about the need for Muslims to evaluate the role of the Koran in their lives: he essentially noted that Christians should do the same.

I think there are are probably occasions within the Lutheran faith when we are guilty of "Bible-olotry" and we need to be very careful about that.

Anyway, thanks for stopping in and sharing your thoughts.

In Christ, -Cloy


All of the conservative/liberal synod disagreement aside, I don't honestly understand how these type of statements aren't being refuted by everyone- and pointedly by ELCA folks. *scratches head* I'm really confused here.

Anything that draws people away from Christ is satanic. Any god who is not our ONE God is a false god. Any "holy" book of a false religion seeks to draw the hearts of men away from the God who created them. How can that NOT be satanic?? I would be more concern over offense to God, as opposed to my individual sensibilities.

I know this isn't "my proper forum", and I'm on my way out the door. I wouldn't have stopped in here, except that we were directed to the thread by way of another thread in the other subforum. I would normally just keep quiet and read, but I thought that this was important enough to bother mentioning, even if nothing productive comes out of the saying of it.

Have a good night, all.

[Protoevangel]

Jenna,

I understand your concern -- Islam is opposed to Christianity. At the same time, I know several Muslim people who are great individuals. I would say that they are mislead by the Islamic faith, but I also understand that they are created in the image of God and are worthy of respect. Does declaring their holy book Satanic build bridges that would give us opportunities to share our faith with them?
It is the truth. Simple as that.

It may not be a good method of evangelism, but that is not the primary focus of this discourse is it Cloy? Neither for yourself, Willy, Jenna, I, nor for anyone else participating an any of the discussions here. Please don't confuse evangelism and outreach with a discussion among "family", as it were.

I think it's also important to look at this whole thread in context. Willy was noting that an Islamic woman recently spoke on the radio about the need for Muslims to evaluate the role of the Koran in their lives: he essentially noted that Christians should do the same.

I think there are are probably occasions within the Lutheran faith when we are guilty of "Bible-olotry" and we need to be very careful about that.

Anyway, thanks for stopping in and sharing your thoughts.

In Christ, -Cloy

Willy said:
"Christians don't believe in the Bible. They believe in God."

I reply:
"I and my neighbor and, in short, all men, may err and deceive, but the Word of God cannot err."
- Large Catechism (Holy Baptism, verse 57)

What phrase do you see in common with these verses?
Matthew 4:4, Matthew 4:6, Matthew 4:7, Matthew 4:10, Matthew 11:10, Matthew 21:13, Matthew 26:24, Matthew 26:31, Mark 7:6, Mark 9:12, Mark 9:13, Mark 11:17, Mark 14:21, Mark 14:27, Luke 2:23, Luke 3:4, Luke 4:4, Luke 4:8, Luke 4:10, Luke 7:27, Luke 10:26, Luke 18:31, Luke 19:46, Luke 20:17, Luke 21:22, Luke 22:37, Luke 24:44, Luke 24:46, John 2:17, John 6:31, John 6:45, John 8:17, John 10:34, John 12:14, John 12:16, John 15:25.

"It is written." This is our Lord's most common statement in the Gospels. Jesus used the Scriptures as the infallable norm and rule. He said that the Scripture pointed to Him. He also said, "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."

Until Heaven and Earth pass away, not one jot or tittle.

Oh, Christians believe in the Bible all right, exactly because they believe in Christ.

In fact I am saddened that you would defend such a statement as Willy's above, Cloy.

Willy basically said (Paraphrased):
Christians would do well to admit the Bible in places is not helpful.
Christians would do well to admit that their holy book has problems.


I reply:
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
- 2 Timothy 3:16

"Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."
- 2 Peter 3:14-16

Anything that would defame Scripture is Satanic. Blessed be God and His Word, and cursed be everything and everyone who teaches contrary to God and His Word, even if it should be an apostle, or an angel from heaven. Amen!

[ottaia]

Do you really find it that easy to just accept eveything as is? Didn't God give us minds to think? You quote every jot and tittle but I am willing to bet you enjoy a good shrimp cocktail (or Brat, or your wife sitting next to you in worship) every now and then. If you do, then you are either unrepentent or you are admitting in your life that parts of the Bible are not as relavant as others.

[Jenna]

Do you really find it that easy to just accept eveything as is? Didn't God give us minds to think? You quote every jot and tittle but I am willing to bet you enjoy a good shrimp cocktail (or Brat, or your wife sitting next to you in worship) every now and then. If you do, then you are either unrepentent or you are admitting in your life that parts of the Bible are not as relavant as others.

Wow. I am just floored. There is nothing wrong with backing up a point by providing the scripture that birthed the understanding. One would think this to be expected and joyfully embraced, not demeaned. God did give us minds to use well, and He calls us to be wise and discerning many times. Clear thinking does not mean that we must toss out or ignore parts of scripture, and nothing loses it's relevance- only the application changes. No, we are not condemned by the law, and a person may feel free to eat shrimp if they choose. Likewise, a person also has the freedom to acknowledge God's wisdom in all things, and they may decide that shrimp, pork, etc. will not be eaten by them. These things are heart issues between a person and God. Why this even came up in response to DanHead's post, I don't know. You'll have to draw the connection more plainly for me, I'm sure.

[ottaia]

Jenna,

So often I hear the logic, "The Bible said it. I believe it. That settles it." That logic must deal with the whole Bible, sexism, shrimp, and all because the Bible said these things too. I find this response to be simplistic. I have found that people lose faith becuase of these responses. I often feel that the responses of some people in CF is more a matter of "putting it to the heathen" rather than helping (as in a response where someone refered to me as "Buddy boy", I find that demeaning. It would be similar to me calling you "little lady".).

We do pick and choose how we interpret the Bible. We pick and choose what rules we uphold. We need to be aware of that. We need to observe our process in making the choices. I use the Brats and sitting with the wife as an example because we generally choose to not uphold these rules. If we say everything in the Bible is the truth, then why do we not uphold these rules?

Find the forum on "Why I lost my faith." Read the stories with an open mind and non-judgementally. Ask yourself, "How do I bring the gospel to this person now that God has brought him or her to my attention. How do I not continue to not keep ripping the wound open?" You can write these persons off or you can recognize that they are also loved creatures of God that have been hurt by other loved creatures of God.

[Jenna]

So often I hear the logic, "The Bible said it. I believe it. That settles it." That logic must deal with the whole Bible, sexism, shrimp, and all because the Bible said these things too. I find this response to be simplistic.

Ottaia, there are times when we can choose to study to try and understand WHY God has said some things are good and some things are not. However, there will always be things that are beyond our comprehension, and areas where God has chosen not to give us answers, for what I can only assume is to give us room to exercise stepping out in faith.

I think that many times it is helpful to look and see why God says what He does, but in the end it really does come down to "He said it, it is true". From that point, we either choose to take what we do know and take that leap of faith for the rest, or we abandon the truth as foolishness. It is always good to have discussion, but are any of our personal opinions, leanings, or emotions on par with what God has to say? No. So, if a person truly wishes to settle a matter, it makes logical sense to turn directly to God's word.

Now, I'm not one for dubbing people "nicknames" as a way to make anyone feel inferior. You can feel free to call me "little lady" any which way though. *laughs* There are far worse things to be called than a lady. ;) I understand where you are coming from though, and I think that sometimes folks let their tempers get the better of them. It's not right, but it's hard for many people to hear things from a brother in Christ that seemingly challenge God's word. It is understandable that people become very passionate when confronted with statements that are such an affront. You have to understand that people are going to naturally expect you to have a better understanding of God's word than an unbeliever does. Folks are less likely to beat around the bush and use a plethora of euphemisms. It may not seem as much of a positive point, but I see it as a great thing that at least folks are being transparent and honest. It is so much more confusing when people do not say what they mean, and mean what they say.

:)

[ottaia]

I think that many times it is helpful to look and see why God says what He does, but in the end it really does come down to "He said it, it is true". From that point, we either choose to take what we do know and take that leap of faith for the rest, or we abandon the truth as foolishness. It is always good to have discussion, but are any of our personal opinions, leanings, or emotions on par with what God has to say? No. So, if a person truly wishes to settle a matter, it makes logical sense to turn directly to God's word.


I am not understanding how you are addressing the "truth" of Levitical laws that we choose to not follow (stick with the easy ones, pork, shellfish, mixed fabrics, mixed planting). If we disregarad these, how can we say the bible is inerrant?

I am not asking this to be nitpicky, I just find it incongruous. I am not saying that we disreagard the Bible, I am saying that the Bible is a living document. If we keep it locked in the past, it ceases to speak to us. We pick and choose but are not honest about it. Cannot the Spirit give us new understanding for a time that the writers of the Scriptures could not even imagine?

[Jenna]

I am not understanding how you are addressing the "truth" of Levitical laws that we choose to not follow (stick with the easy ones, pork, shellfish, mixed fabrics, mixed planting). If we disregarad these, how can we say the bible is inerrant?

I am not asking this to be nitpicky, I just find it incongruous. I am not saying that we disreagard the Bible, I am saying that the Bible is a living document. If we keep it locked in the past, it ceases to speak to us. We pick and choose but are not honest about it. Cannot the Spirit give us new understanding for a time that the writers of the Scriptures could not even imagine?

When I was speaking of God's truth, I was speaking of scripture on a whole, not simply the levitical laws. I, personally, have no problem with a person having a different understanding of scripture, so long as it is not in conflict with the rest of scripture. *chuckles* A person can look at the very same verse numerous times in their life and learn different lessons about themselves and the nature of God. So long as they are not distorting what God has actually given us, I have no qualms. Examples may be so simple as God's will for married life, and how husbands and wives relate to each other. One day it may help a couple make it through a trying time, or steer them clear of one. On another day, it may speak strongly to them about the relationship between Christ and His bride, the Church. In this way, I believe that the Word is "living" and fits into every aspect of our lives, no matter how often we read it and/or apply it.

In reference to the levitical laws, there seems to be misunderstanding as to whether or not they are applicable and/or edifying. Though we are no longer condemned by the law, this does not mean that it does not have value. Whether we are talking about eating animals that are not very healthy for our bodys, bathing practices, etc. these do not become empty words because are are not damned by our innability to fulfill the law. What we do have is the freedom to embrace God's Word (all of it) and do our very best to do all that is pleasing to the Lord, because of our love. For some, that means that they take care with how they eat, because they know that God's word holds great wisdom as to what foods will give us health and long life. For others, they see wisdom in how God would have us plant our fields and/or leave them fallow. Will we lose salvation because we do not manage to do everything perfectly? Of course not. It's only by the power of the Lord that we can do anything that is pleasing to God anyway, and our failures are overcome by Christ. It doesn't make the law less valuable, nor God's word irrelevant because we choose not to utilize it in the way that it was given. :) Just because we are full of errors, it doesn't mean that the bible is in error. Isn't that the point, that we'll never get it right, but that God loves us enough to give us a way breach the gap between us (Christ)? :)

[Protoevangel]

Do you really find it that easy to just accept eveything as is? Didn't God give us minds to think? You quote every jot and tittle but I am willing to bet you enjoy a good shrimp cocktail (or Brat, or your wife sitting next to you in worship) every now and then. If you do, then you are either unrepentent or you are admitting in your life that parts of the Bible are not as relavant as others.
The Law is good and Holy, it is absolutely relevant and good, in it’s own sphere and context. But the Law does not justify anyone. It does not tell me how I may be freed from my sins and escape Hell. The purpose of the Law is to show us just how wretched and far from God's Holiness we really are, forcing us to admit our need for a Savior. Unfortunately, most people never allow themselves to comprehend this. People become focused on the things they do right, and ignore the parts of the law that doesn’t stroke their ego. I cannot keep the Law, and even if I could keep the letter, I could never truly keep it in my heart. For that reason, the only hope I have is Christ, and it is to Him that I let the Law drive me. That does not make one part less relevant than others.

Now, stop calling me a brat! :D

[Protoevangel]

So often I hear the logic, "The Bible said it. I believe it. That settles it." That logic must deal with the whole Bible, sexism, shrimp, and all because the Bible said these things too. I find this response to be simplistic. I have found that people lose faith becuase of these responses.
The Bible said it. I believe it. That settles it. Simplistic? Yea, maybe. But I am a simple man; my rationality is just as broken and sinful as the rest of me. I am not wiser than God, who gave us His Word. If people loose faith because of such a statement of childlike devotion, because of anything you or I say, it certainly was not a true faith that was lost. Human words cannot negate a gift given by God himself. True faith is a living, energizing, motivating power, based in God’s Word, not mans.


I often feel that the responses of some people in CF is more a matter of "putting it to the heathen" rather than helping (as in a response where someone refered to me as "Buddy boy", I find that demeaning. It would be similar to me calling you "little lady".).
I have been guilty of this kind of demeaning speech as well. If I have used this kind of language in dealing with you, please forgive me.


We do pick and choose how we interpret the Bible. We pick and choose what rules we uphold. We need to be aware of that. We need to observe our process in making the choices. I use the Brats and sitting with the wife as an example because we generally choose to not uphold these rules. If we say everything in the Bible is the truth, then why do we not uphold these rules?
There are two basic ways we interpret the Bible.
1.) We put the Bible in the defendant’s chair, and let it tell its story. We believe that which we decide to believe, and toss aside that which we are not comfortable with. You are the standard.
2.) We put ourselves in the defendant’s chair. We hold high the Holy Scriptures and declare, “I am Guilty, but God’s word cannot err”! If I misunderstand what is here, it is because of my own brokenness. God and His word is the standard.

Am I guilty of not following all of God’s Word? Yes I am! I do not declare that it is because God’s Word is broken, though. It is because I am broken. Only Christ can save me, I certainly cannot.


Find the forum on "Why I lost my faith." Read the stories with an open mind and non-judgementally. Ask yourself, "How do I bring the gospel to this person now that God has brought him or her to my attention. How do I not continue to not keep ripping the wound open?" You can write these persons off or you can recognize that they are also loved creatures of God that have been hurt by other loved creatures of God.
Where is this forum?

[Willy]

I am not understanding how you are addressing the "truth" of Levitical laws that we choose to not follow (stick with the easy ones, pork, shellfish, mixed fabrics, mixed planting). If we disregarad these, how can we say the bible is inerrant?

I am not asking this to be nitpicky, I just find it incongruous. I am not saying that we disreagard the Bible, I am saying that the Bible is a living document. If we keep it locked in the past, it ceases to speak to us. We pick and choose but are not honest about it. Cannot the Spirit give us new understanding for a time that the writers of the Scriptures could not even imagine?
Good! Good! Good! you should think about going to seminary. The church needs people who can have this dynamic understanding of the Scriptures.

[Protoevangel]

Good! Good! Good! you should think about going to seminary. The church needs people who can have this dynamic understanding of the Scriptures.
Take a quick look at his public profile, Willy.

Occupation: Pastor

[ctobola]

I guess we could call it.... belated prophecy? ;)

-c

Take a quick look at his public profile, Willy.

Occupation: Pastor

[ottaia]

I have been guilty of this kind of demeaning speech as well. If I have used this kind of language in dealing with you, please forgive me.


No problem.:)

The forum is in the http://www.christianforums.com/t1861800-why-i-stopped-believing.html