Concerning ministers.

[Colabomb]

As you all know, I am leaning more and more towards Lutheranism, even to the Point that I am attending a Lutheran Church.

As a former Anglo-Catholic however, I have a nagging question in the back of my head.

The Lutheran Churches do not hold to Apostolic Succession in the classic sense of the term, and may be very right in doing so.

But my question is, what makes a valid Minister. Lutheranism would say that not just any Christian should perform the Mass. There is something different about a minister.

What is it?

[filosofer]

Howdy. "Apostolic sucession" is seen within Lutheranism in terms of the confession of faith (in Matt. 16, not in terms of Peter himself).

What makes a pastor is the call of a congregation to serve as pastor (which is termed the "external call"). The man himself should also have an internal call, a belief that God has equipped/gifted him to serve in that capacity ("internal call"). Until the congregation extends the external call, however, the man is not a pastor.

1 & 2 Timothy and Titus set guidelines for determining whether a man is qualified (gifted teacher and moral/character qualities) for serving as pastor.

[MORTANIUS]

Howdy. "Apostolic sucession" is seen within Lutheranism in terms of the confession of faith (in Matt. 16, not in terms of Peter himself).

What makes a pastor is the call of a congregation to serve as pastor (which is termed the "external call"). The man himself should also have an internal call, a belief that God has equipped/gifted him to serve in that capacity ("internal call"). Until the congregation extends the external call, however, the man is not a pastor.

1 & 2 Timothy and Titus set guidelines for determining whether a man is qualified (gifted teacher and moral/character qualities) for serving as pastor.


I was thinking in those same lines. Very well said.

[theologia crucis]

A way that I've seen it put it is that Lutherans believe in the succession of apostolic doctrine (through the Scriptures), not necessarily in a line of priests or pastors.

Wherever a pastor preaches truly according to the Scriptures (rightly dividing Law & Gospel, proclaiming the vicarious atonement and justification by grace through faith for Christ's sake, the sacraments, etc., i.e., his confession of faith), that pastor is apostolic.

Filo, correct me if I'm wrong... :)

[SPALATIN]

A way that I've seen it put it is that Lutherans believe in the succession of apostolic doctrine (through the Scriptures), not necessarily in a line of priests or pastors.

Wherever a pastor preaches truly according to the Scriptures (rightly dividing Law & Gospel, proclaiming the vicarious atonement and justification by grace through faith for Christ's sake, the sacraments, etc., i.e., his confession of faith), that pastor is apostolic.

Filo, correct me if I'm wrong... :)

I may not be Filo, but I think that you are correct my friend. ;)

[MORTANIUS]

Apostolic Tradition seems to imply those ministers appointed by other ministers.

What about the Apostle Paul? He was a enemy of Christians, but then suddenly became an Apostle through JESUS CHRIST, and not by appointment by the other Apostles.

Strangely, many people are taught to believe that Apostolic Tradition requires a lineage through Priest-to-Priest, Bishop-to-Bishop.

If this was true, then Paul would never have been called Apostle.

As I have looked into this understanding from other denominational faiths, it seems that people use Apostolic Tradition to reinforce their Church hierarchy and "political" structure of their religion.

Just some thoughts.

[IowaLutheran]

If this was true, then Paul would never have been called Apostle.



Excellent observation. :thumbsup:

[Protoevangel]

Apostolic Tradition seems to imply those ministers appointed by other ministers.

What about the Apostle Paul? He was a enemy of Christians, but then suddenly became an Apostle through JESUS CHRIST, and not by appointment by the other Apostles.

Strangely, many people are taught to believe that Apostolic Tradition requires a lineage through Priest-to-Priest, Bishop-to-Bishop.

If this was true, then Paul would never have been called Apostle.

As I have looked into this understanding from other denominational faiths, it seems that people use Apostolic Tradition to reinforce their Church hierarchy and "political" structure of their religion.

Just some thoughts.
I agree with your thoughts here, but someone who believes in the Historic Succession could point out that Paul was appointed by Christ Himself (Galatians 1:1), who is the Great High Priest, just like the other Apostles were (sans Matthias).

[SPALATIN]

I agree with your thoughts here, but someone who believes in the Historic Succession could point out that Paul was appointed by Christ Himself (Galatians 1:1), who is the Great High Priest, just like the other Apostles were (sans Matthias).

I believe he was selected by lots. See the lottery was started by Christians ;)

[ctobola]

John,

Good question, but at least in the protestant tradition we distinguish between ministers and pastors. We are all ministers -- we are all called to serve one another, the world and the Body of Christ.

Not everyone is a pastor. That is one of the many ways a person can serve others.

This is somewhat confusing because the term minister has come to mean pastor in the vernacular.

In Christ, -Cloy

As you all know, I am leaning more and more towards Lutheranism, even to the Point that I am attending a Lutheran Church.

As a former Anglo-Catholic however, I have a nagging question in the back of my head.

The Lutheran Churches do not hold to Apostolic Succession in the classic sense of the term, and may be very right in doing so.

But my question is, what makes a valid Minister. Lutheranism would say that not just any Christian should perform the Mass. There is something different about a minister.

What is it?

[ByzantineDixie]

I agree with your thoughts here, but someone who believes in the Historic Succession could point out that Paul was appointed by Christ Himself (Galatians 1:1), who is the Great High Priest, just like the other Apostles were (sans Matthias).

Exactly, Scripture says that Paul was appointed by Christ, so it is true, which is why I am not comfortable with the reasoning presented in Mort's assessment....because with men today there is no scriptural affirmation of one's call (only in the sense that there name isn't in Scripture like Pauls). So...if today someone is called by Christ to be a pastor one must defer to a different form of substantiation or confirmation of that call.

Filo speaks of the internal and external calls. OK. But the Paul in his letter to Titus says to "appoint" elders. Here there is clear, unambiguous instruction of a leader in the church appointing other leaders. Are there scriptural instructions for a congregation to call it's own leader? I haven't really done much study on this topic...but after re-reading the Confessions regarding bishops...I am interested in learning more.

[ctobola]

John,

Actually, we do say that every Christian can preside at the Communion table or perform baptisms. Unlike the denominations that hold to the historic episcopate, the we do not believe in orders or levels of ministry -- we believe in that the "Priesthood of All Believers" (POAB) is clearly presented in Scripture.

POAB holds that all believers are equal before God. In essence, Lutherans hold that everyone is a "lay person" -- some of us are called to be teachers, some to do acts of charity, some of engage in the ministry of the Word and Sacraments.

This is different from the historic episcopate, which holds that when a person becomes a priest or bishop, they are "ontologically" changed -- that person has a fundamentally different nature. That's the reason Catholic and Episcopal bishops and priests hold that title until they die. In the Lutheran traditions we believe that the role of pastor is tied to a call from a congregation -- when the call ends, so does the role.

As I said, for Lutherans we believe that all followers of Jesus Christ can insititute communion or perform a baptism; however, for the sake of good order, those tasks are (usually) performed by or (less frequently) supervised/administered by a pastor.

We keep this practice to ensure "good order." We don't want people going off and practicing private communion services (and excluding others), and we want to ensure that the Word is faithfully proclaimed, so we choose someone who will administer this gifts on behalf of us in the community of faith.

That last phrase is important. In the Episcopal and Roman Catholic traditions, the priests and bishops embody the Church (with a capital C) and they brings the "Church" to the lay people. Without a priest or a bishop, a group of Christians cannot be considered "the Church" in those traditions.

As Lutherans, we honestly say, "we are the church," even if we don't have a pastor. As a general rule, we choose a person who has graduated from seminary and been approved by some review board before they serve within our congregations.... but the decision to do that is adiophora. We choose formally trained people because we take the role seriously -- and we want it performed professionally and correctly. However, if Gilligan and the Crew had been Lutherans, they could have chosen one of their own (the Professor, I hope) to be their pastor when they were stranded on the island. As such, the Professor could have legitimately performed baptisms and instituted the Sacrament. The Confessions require only that the person administering the Word and Sacraments be "properly called."

In short, the "historic episcopate" view of the pastor is that he/she is an outsider who comes to serve a group of believers in a particular locations.

For Lutherans, it's probably more accurate to say that we are all lay people -- and the pastor is "one of us" (even though he/she comes from another city) who is called by God and by the congregation to serve on our behalf.

Hope that helps!

-Cloy

P.S. There are a lot of "high church" congregations within the Lutheran faith that behave as if they had the historic episcopate -- they act like their pastors are "holy men" or "shamen" who are ontologically different from the people in the pews. Watch out for this -- this view is more informed by tradition than Scripture or even the Lutheran confessions.




As you all know, I am leaning more and more towards Lutheranism, even to the Point that I am attending a Lutheran Church.

As a former Anglo-Catholic however, I have a nagging question in the back of my head.

The Lutheran Churches do not hold to Apostolic Succession in the classic sense of the term, and may be very right in doing so.

But my question is, what makes a valid Minister. Lutheranism would say that not just any Christian should perform the Mass. There is something different about a minister.

What is it?

[Colabomb]

John,

Actually, we do say that every Christian can preside at the Communion table or perform baptisms. Unlike the denominations that hold to the historic episcopate, the we do not believe in orders or levels of ministry -- we believe in that the "Priesthood of All Believers" (POAB) is clearly presented in Scripture.

POAB holds that all believers are equal before God. In essence, Lutherans hold that everyone is a "lay person" -- some of us are called to be teachers, some to do acts of charity, some of engage in the ministry of the Word and Sacraments.

This is different from the historic episcopate, which holds that when a person becomes a priest or bishop, they are "ontologically" changed -- that person has a fundamentally different nature. That's the reason Catholic and Episcopal bishops and priests hold that title until they die. In the Lutheran traditions we believe that the role of pastor is tied to a call from a congregation -- when the call ends, so does the role.

As I said, for Lutherans we believe that all followers of Jesus Christ can insititute communion or perform a baptism; however, for the sake of good order, those tasks are (usually) performed by or (less frequently) supervised/administered by a pastor.

We keep this practice to ensure "good order." We don't want people going off and practicing private communion services (and excluding others), and we want to ensure that the Word is faithfully proclaimed, so we choose someone who will administer this gifts on behalf of us in the community of faith.

That last phrase is important. In the Episcopal and Roman Catholic traditions, the priests and bishops embody the Church (with a capital C) and they brings the "Church" to the lay people. Without a priest or a bishop, a group of Christians cannot be considered "the Church" in those traditions.

As Lutherans, we honestly say, "we are the church," even if we don't have a pastor. As a general rule, we choose a person who has graduated from seminary and been approved by some review board before they serve within our congregations.... but the decision to do that is adiophora. We choose formally trained people because we take the role seriously -- and we want it performed professionally and correctly. However, if Gilligan and the Crew had been Lutherans, they could have chosen one of their own (the Professor, I hope) to be their pastor when they were stranded on the island. As such, the Professor could have legitimately performed baptisms and instituted the Sacrament. The Confessions require only that the person administering the Word and Sacraments be "properly called."

In short, the "historic episcopate" view of the pastor is that he/she is an outsider who comes to serve a group of believers in a particular locations.

For Lutherans, it's probably more accurate to say that we are all lay people -- and the pastor is "one of us" (even though he/she comes from another city) who is called by God and by the congregation to serve on our behalf.

Hope that helps!

-Cloy

P.S. There are a lot of "high church" congregations within the Lutheran faith that behave as if they had the historic episcopate -- they act like their pastors are "holy men" or "shamen" who are ontologically different from the people in the pews. Watch out for this -- this view is more informed by tradition than Scripture or even the Lutheran confessions.
Could you show me this in Scripture?

I am not trying to confrontational, but I want to be Biblical.

[ctobola]

Could you show me this in Scripture?

I am not trying to confrontational, but I want to be Biblical.

No problem, here are a couple...

"But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." -I Peter 2:9 (NIV)

"You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth." -Revalation 5:10

I'm on the road right now, so I don't have access to reference material. I'd suggest reading Paul's epistle to the Hebrews -- the concept of the Priesthood of All Believers is laid out quite nicely there.

You might also want to research the Lutheran view on POAB -- most protestant faiths embrace it, but Luther really pioneered the concept during the German Reformation.

Excelsior! -Cloy

[Colabomb]

No problem, here are a couple...

"But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." -I Peter 2:9 (NIV)

"You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth." -Revalation 5:10

I'm on the road right now, so I don't have access to reference material. I'd suggest reading Paul's epistle to the Hebrews -- the concept of the Priesthood of All Believers is laid out quite nicely there.

You might also want to research the Lutheran view on POAB -- most protestant faiths embrace it, but Luther really pioneered the concept during the German Reformation.

Excelsior! -Cloy
Oh, I accept the POAB. I have for as long as I have known about it.

What I mean, is can you prove your other points.

No hurry.

[ctobola]

What other points? :D

I think what I've prestented is an accurate presentation of POAB.

-Cloy

Oh, I accept the POAB. I have for as long as I have known about it.

What I mean, is can you prove your other points.

No hurry.

[Colabomb]

What other points? :D

I think what I've prestented is an accurate presentation of POAB.

-Cloy
Sorry lol. You are right lol.

Scripture mentions the laying on of hands. Where does this come into play?

[MORTANIUS]

I believe he was selected by lots. See the lottery was started by Christians ;)

The "draw by lots" was for the replacement of Judas with John.

Just thought I'd mention that :wave:

[C.F.W. Walther]

LOL Scott:) ---think they cast lots for Christ's garment first. Secular people have the "one up" on us.

[filosofer]

The "draw by lots" was for the replacement of Judas with John.

Just thought I'd mention that :wave:


Actually it wasn't John who replaced Judas, but Matthias (Acts 1:26),a nd notice that it says "the lot fell on matthias". Hope it didn't hurt him too much. ;)

[filosofer]

Filo speaks of the internal and external calls. OK. But the Paul in his letter to Titus says to "appoint" elders. Here there is clear, unambiguous instruction of a leader in the church appointing other leaders. Are there scriptural instructions for a congregation to call it's own leader? I haven't really done much study on this topic...but after re-reading the Confessions regarding bishops...I am interested in learning more.


It appears that the early church allowed both practices. Interesting that in Acts 6, when they are choosing the seven, we read that the multitude selected men who they wanted in that position, and the apostles prayed and laid hands. Kind a "both-and" scenario.

Acts 6:5-6
And what they said pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Proch'orus, and Nica'nor, and Ti'mon, and Par'menas, and Nicola'us, a proselyte of Antioch. 6 These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands upon them.

Thus, the Confessions do not have a hard and fast absolute on the apostolic succession, and laying on hands - they are good rites to follow, but not required, and do not constitute the essence of serving God.

[ByzantineDixie]

It appears that the early church allowed both practices. Interesting that in Acts 6, when they are choosing the seven, we read that the multitude selected men who they wanted in that position, and the apostles prayed and laid hands. Kind a "both-and" scenario.

Acts 6:5-6
And what they said pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Proch'orus, and Nica'nor, and Ti'mon, and Par'menas, and Nicola'us, a proselyte of Antioch. 6 These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands upon them.

Thus, the Confessions do not have a hard and fast absolute on the apostolic succession, and laying on hands - they are good rites to follow, but not required, and do not constitute the essence of serving God.



But who did the appointing in the referenced passage? Acts 6:3 Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business;

Who is the "we"? To me, context would imply the we is the apostles...leaders appoint and lay hands on the next leaders--even if the laity recommend. This is quite consistant with the Titus reference. And I think he gives the same instruction in one of the letters to Timothy too...I'll have to look.

The Confessions have no hard and fast rule because the reformers had no choice. They admit it wasn't their preference. Today we don't have the same contraints but there isn't an effort to implement the preferences of the reformers. I guess I don't understand that.

[MORTANIUS]

:help:



Actually it wasn't John who replaced Judas, but Matthias (Acts 1:26),a nd notice that it says "the lot fell on matthias". Hope it didn't hurt him too much. ;)

[filosofer]

But who did the appointing in the referenced passage? Acts 6:3 Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business;

Who is the "we"? To me, context would imply the we is the apostles...leaders appoint and lay hands on the next leaders--even if the laity recommend. This is quite consistant with the Titus reference. And I think he gives the same instruction in one of the letters to Timothy too...I'll have to look.

My point is that it reflects both. Interestingly the Lutheran expression of that is to have the congregation call the pastor, one who has been "checked out" (by those who have trained the pastor) and the installation is a combination of the congregation and with other pastors - trans-parish [to note a Dr. H. concern] it is not a case of one being over the other; both work together for good, to paraphrase a different text. ;)


The Confessions have no hard and fast rule because the reformers had no choice. They admit it wasn't their preference. Today we don't have the same contraints but there isn't an effort to implement the preferences of the reformers. I guess I don't understand that.

Actually, the Reformers had the choice. Had there be no choice, they would have insisted on one or the other. If you read Hermann Sasse, Here We Stand, he demonstrates that the Reformers correctly blame the schism of the reformation era on the RCC, because the RCC demanded recognition of the papal authority as divine; the Lutherans would have granted him authority had the RCC acknowledged that the papal authority was by human rite, not divine. The reason it was their "preference" is that Scripture gives no clear cut instruction/command on it.

CFW Walther (remember him? ;) ) wrote a fascinating book called The Congregation's Right to Choose Its Pastor, translated by Fred Kramer. Walther presents extensive quotes from the Confessions, Luther, Chemnitz, and on through the orthodox theologians, demonstrating the fallacy of Grabau's view on the ministry (demanding hierarchical, absolute pastoral authority). It is one of the few writings of Walther where he uses extended sarcasm and irony in presenting the case, essentially saying, "Well, poor Luther, he got it all wrong; and aren't we fortunate to have this new guiding light in Grabau to set all Lutherans straight on this matter!" If Walther had known about it, it would have used many smilies throughout the book. :)

[SPALATIN]

My point is that it reflects both. Interestingly the Lutheran expression of that is to have the congregation call the pastor, one who has been "checked out" (by those who have trained the pastor) and the installation is a combination of the congregation and with other pastors - trans-parish [to note a Dr. H. concern] it is not a case of one being over the other; both work together for good, to paraphrase a different text. ;)




Actually, the Reformers had the choice. Had there be no choice, they would have insisted on one or the other. If you read Hermann Sasse, Here We Stand, he demonstrates that the Reformers correctly blame the schism of the reformation era on the RCC, because the RCC demanded recognition of the papal authority as divine; the Lutherans would have granted him authority had the RCC acknowledged that the papal authority was by human rite, not divine. The reason it was their "preference" is that Scripture gives no clear cut instruction/command on it.

CFW Walther (remember him? ;) ) wrote a fascinating book called The Congregation's Right to Choose Its Pastor, translated by Fred Kramer. Walther presents extensive quotes from the Confessions, Luther, Chemnitz, and on through the orthodox theologians, demonstrating the fallacy of Grabau's view on the ministry (demanding hierarchical, absolute pastoral authority). It is one of the few writings of Walther where he uses extended sarcasm and irony in presenting the case, essentially saying, "Well, poor Luther, he got it all wrong; and aren't we fortunate to have this new guiding light in Grabau to set all Lutherans straight on this matter!" If Walther had known about it, it would have used many smilies throughout the book. :)


In the past year of being here and on LQ i have come to really appreciate good old Carl Ferdinand. His stuff is so right on. Thanks for this info filo.

:thumbsup:

[ByzantineDixie]

Thank you filo for your challenging response.


My point is that it reflects both. Interestingly the Lutheran expression of that is to have the congregation call the pastor, one who has been "checked out" (by those who have trained the pastor) and the installation is a combination of the congregation and with other pastors - trans-parish [to note a Dr. H. concern] it is not a case of one being over the other; both work together for good, to paraphrase a different text. ;)


I understand and actually agree with what you are saying to a point...it is true that the Congregation will choose and for the installation of a new pastor...the pastors from surrounding churches come and do the laying on of hands. But...do these pastors coming in from the surrounding churches really do what you suggest they do...do that really check out the guy and do the appointing? On the surface it all looks exactly like the Cypian model (seems to be patterned exactly after Acts 6) quoted in Treatise but I think the authority of those pastors coming in from the other parishes seems questionable in today's Lutheran church. What if they exercised that authority and told the congregation ...sorry this guy is not suitable? Has this ever been done? Is it written in some kind of agreement that this may be done?

And the way district presidents are elected...well that doesn't even seem to me to fit the Cypian model (Scriptural model) on the surface--does it to you?


Actually, the Reformers had the choice. Had there be no choice, they would have insisted on one or the other. If you read Hermann Sasse, Here We Stand, he demonstrates that the Reformers correctly blame the schism of the reformation era on the RCC, because the RCC demanded recognition of the papal authority as divine; the Lutherans would have granted him authority had the RCC acknowledged that the papal authority was by human rite, not divine. The reason it was their "preference" is that Scripture gives no clear cut instruction/command on it.

I haven't read Sasse but I have read the Apology...so are you and Sasse saying that the reformers did not mean what they wrote?

1 With the proviso that we employ canonical ordination, they accept Article XIV, where we say that no one should be allowed to administer the Word and the sacraments in the church unless he is duly called.3 (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=17430090#_ftn1) On this matter we have given frequent testimony in the assembly to our deep desire to maintain the church polity and various ranks of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, although they were created by human authority. We know that the Fathers had good and useful reasons for instituting ecclesiastical discipline in the manner described by the ancient canons. 2 But the bishops either force our priests to forsake and condemn the sort of doctrine we have confessed, or else, in their unheard of cruelty, they kill the unfortunate and innocent men. This keeps our priests from acknowledging such bishops. Thus the cruelty of the bishops is the reason for the abolition of canonical government in some places, despite our earnest desire to keep it. Let them see to it how they will answer to God for disrupting the church.
3 (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=17430090#_ftnref1)Roman Confutation: “It ought to be understood that he is rightly called who is called in accordance with the form of law and the ecclesiastical ordinances and decrees hitherto observed everywhere in the Christian world … ” (Pt. I, Art. XIV).

Tappert, T. G. (2000, c1959). The book of concord : The confessions of the evangelical Lutheran church. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.



CFW Walther (remember him? ;) ) wrote a fascinating book called The Congregation's Right to Choose Its Pastor, translated by Fred Kramer. Walther presents extensive quotes from the Confessions, Luther, Chemnitz, and on through the orthodox theologians, demonstrating the fallacy of Grabau's view on the ministry (demanding hierarchical, absolute pastoral authority). It is one of the few writings of Walther where he uses extended sarcasm and irony in presenting the case, essentially saying, "Well, poor Luther, he got it all wrong; and aren't we fortunate to have this new guiding light in Grabau to set all Lutherans straight on this matter!" If Walther had known about it, it would have used many smilies throughout the book. :)


Sounds like a fun book to read...but Walther had his back against the wall too...What's one gonna to do with one bad bishop from Saxony and a whole new colony of Lutherans. I have to do a lot of creative thinking in my job, too! ;) :D

Maybe the question to ask is whether things would have gone differently had the bishop that was sent for the new Lutheran settlers had not gone astray?

[SPALATIN]

Maybe the question to ask is whether things would have gone differently had the bishop that was sent for the new Lutheran settlers had not gone astray?

Good point Rose, but to speculate on what if's that never happened can cause one's brain to due some very tricky mental gymnastics. There are so many variables that are involved in those hypotheticals that we could be here for months deliberating where things would be. Considering the character of Martin Stephan, I believe it is just a matter of time before he screwed up big enough that he would have been sent off no matter what.

He was a very charismatic leader in Germany and his followers were considered radical by that day's standard of follower. But underneath Stephan's charisma was the character of a rogue. He was married, but was an adulterer and would not divorce his wife because of his vows. He had some serious character flaws here that he was able to keep hidden from those that followed him, but it all caught up to him when the Saxons reached the new world.

They began to notice Stephan's lecherous ways on board the boat they took to the new world. Many wanted him gone then, but Walther and his brother Otto were still behind him. They had been in the Missouri about a year before they finally had enough scandal to send him across the river.

So in a sense, you are right that Walther had his back up against the wall, but it is often when one's back is against the wall that true character is sprung forth. I think Walther did what he had to do under the circumstances he was in. It was also at this time that he began to look at Luther much more seriously than when Stephan was the bishop.

[BigNorsk]

An important point to remember is that while the reformers did state their desire to retain the ecclesiastical hierarcy as much as possible, since it was useful for order, they also recognized the system as being the creation of people (in the quote Rose gave, next part after first bold area), not of divine order. As such, we certainly have some freedom in it, especially if it is not effective in maintaining order.

I would point out to the LCMS members that while claiming to be congregational in governance, the LCMS has an ecclesiastical government running alongside the congregational. This causes quite a tension, examples would be the lay minister controversy where the ecclesiastical government has refused to fully recognize the call of lay ministers, and in the constant pleas for the ecclesiastical government to exert itself in discipline and in policy and the constant complaints whenever it does.

Just something to think about.
Marv

[ByzantineDixie]

So in a sense, you are right that Walther had his back up against the wall, but it is often when one's back is against the wall that true character is sprung forth. I think Walther did what he had to do under the circumstances he was in. It was also at this time that he began to look at Luther much more seriously than when Stephan was the bishop.

You know what...I'll give you that...Walther came up with a reasonable short term fix. BUT...at this point I don't see why Lutherans are married today to that fix created under pressure of a one time situation...especially in light of the desires expressed in the Confessions and considering the dismal state of current LCMS polity.

And I guess a lot comes down to what one thinks is "man-made", too. I think Walther's solution is man-made--someone please tell me if they think otherwise. But Cypian's model is patterned after Scripture...so I don't think that is man-made.

Excuse me while I mull some things over.....

[SPALATIN]

You know what...I'll give you that...Walther came up with a reasonable short term fix. BUT...at this point I don't see why Lutherans are married today to that fix created under pressure of a one time situation...especially in light of the desires expressed in the Confessions and considering the dismal state of current LCMS polity.

And I guess a lot comes down to what one thinks is "man-made", too. I think Walther's solution is man-made--someone please tell me if they think otherwise. But Cypian's model is patterned after Scripture...so I don't think that is man-made.

Excuse me while I mull some things over.....

There is a book I bought about 2 years ago titled "Authority Vested" by Mary Todd. Granted the book was written with the agenda of a woman who wants women to be ordained, but it has some good historical points in it that should not be dismissed. You might want to read it. In it she asserts that the LCMS has a problem with Authority and how it should be vested hence the title.

[filosofer]

You know what...I'll give you that...Walther came up with a reasonable short term fix. BUT...at this point I don't see why Lutherans are married today to that fix created under pressure of a one time situation...especially in light of the desires expressed in the Confessions and considering the dismal state of current LCMS polity.

And I guess a lot comes down to what one thinks is "man-made", too. I think Walther's solution is man-made--someone please tell me if they think otherwise. But Cypian's model is patterned after Scripture...so I don't think that is man-made.


I would suggest that Walther did not come up with a short term fix. Rather as you read Kirke und Amt (okay, Church and Ministry, you discover that what he presented was consistent with 1) Scripture, 2) ECF, 3) Reformers, 4) Orthodox Lutheran theologians. Thus, Walther's back-against-the-wall writing is no more temporary than Luther's back-against-the-wall writing when he wrote the Three Treatises of 1520 or Bondage of the Will. Both men were blessed to have access to exactly what was needed in the crisis, and both responded with Biblical testimony, and both used church history to show the difference between what was presented by the opponents (whether the papal order of the 16th century or the Grabau distortions of the 19th century) and what Scripture/Church history taught, and the solutions they each offered. Luther would have no problem with where Walther ended up on this issue.

[SPALATIN]

I would suggest that Walther did not come up with a short term fix. Rather as you read Kirke und Amt (okay, Church and Ministry, you discover that what he presented was consistent with 1) Scripture, 2) ECF, 3) Reformers, 4) Orthodox Lutheran theologians. Thus, Walther's back-against-the-wall writing is no more temporary than Luther's back-against-the-wall writing when he wrote the Three Treatises of 1520 or Bondage of the Will. Both men were blessed to have access to exactly what was needed in the crisis, and both responded with Biblical testimony, and both used church history to show the difference between what was presented by the opponents (whether the papal order of the 16th century or the Grabau distortions of the 19th century) and what Scripture/Church history taught, and the solutions they each offered. Luther would have no problem with where Walther ended up on this issue.


That and no one else stepped up to bat. Carl was a leader and he did what no one else seemed capable of doing.