Why LCC/LCMS?

[OrthoCanuck]

With rising gas prices I may have to change parishes to something closer to my house. There is a LCC parish near by and another ELCiC parish close as well. Both offer communion every other week (the one I'd be leaving has weekly communion) and both have good Sunday school programs for my kids.

I think the biggest change would be for my kids being barred from communion until they are older. They had to wait to take communion when we were Catholic, then they had their first communion and they could take communion at the Lutheran church we are currently attending. It would be a big change to go back to waiting for communion. The only difficulty with theology would be the whole evolution vs. creation thing, which is something I could work on.

The main question is why might it be a good idea to join a LCC parish? In case you aren't aware, the LCC is a former part of the LCMS and is in full communion with the LCMS still. Also, without putting down the ELCA directly, why do you like being a member of the LCMS (or perhaps WELS)?


Peace.

[OrthoCanuck]

A dozen views and no responses. PM me if you'd rather not post here. Or, am I asking a dumb question?

Peace.

[filosofer]

Howdy. There are several issues involved:

1. Communion. One of the problems that has appeared in recent decades, particularly in ELCA and predecssor LCA is that communion age was dropped, so that very young children began attending. This was matched by less instruction in what is the essence of the Lord's Supper, benefits, etc. The problem multiplies when families with children then move elsewhere, where the aage is not the same. As a pastor in the LCMS my approach was to meet the family that had been in this situation and discuss the theology of communion and discuss it with the child. In several cases they continued to receive communion because of that confession of faith. One family asked about it and they were concerned about the friends of the child - how they would respond if their son/daughter received communion and the others could not. In that case they agreed that the offense might be avoided by the child not receiving communion for that year (the child was beginning the second year of catechism instruction).

So, the inconsistency of age of communion will have to be addressed, even at a congregational level, not Synodical/church body level.

2. From my perspective (former LCMS, now TAALC) the issue of theological erosion would be enough to make the move to LCC necessary. But keep in mind that there is no perfect church body, nor perfect congregation - that's why we still have Word and Sacrament ministry! ;)

3. Not sure what you mean by the problem of creation vs. evolution (although, technically the distinction is between creation and macro-evolution). Can you expand?

In Christ's love,
filo

[OrthoCanuck]

3. Not sure what you mean by the problem of creation vs. evolution (although, technically the distinction is between creation and macro-evolution). Can you expand?


I was taught theistic evolution as a Catholic and in my current Lutheran church. Basically, Genesis 1-11 is treated as more symbolic than literal. Ie. six days are not six 24hr periods, but stages, Noah's flood was large but not global, etc. etc. From what I've read, the LCMS/LCC adhere to a literal interpretation. I'm not so inflexible on the issue that I won't change my mind if I'm convinced, mostly because I've never seen it as a major issue.

Before I switched my major to Medieval Studies, I was a Geography major and I remember one semester I took three classes that gave an introduction to evolutionary theory. It was the first time I had to see if the bible and some aspects of evolutionary theory were compatible. I was told the RCC teaches they are compatible and I subsequently looked into Theistic evolution and found it made some sense. But I kind of left it alone because it ultimately was not the biggest spiritual concern in my life.


Peace.

[LutherNut]

I was taught theistic evolution as a Catholic and in my current Lutheran church. Basically, Genesis 1-11 is treated as more symbolic than literal. Ie. six days are not six 24hr periods, but stages, Noah's flood was large but not global, etc. etc. From what I've read, the LCMS/LCC adhere to a literal interpretation. I'm not so inflexible on the issue that I won't change my mind if I'm convinced, mostly because I've never seen it as a major issue.

Before I switched my major to Medieval Studies, I was a Geography major and I remember one semester I took three classes that gave an introduction to evolutionary theory. It was the first time I had to see if the bible and some aspects of evolutionary theory were compatible. I was told the RCC teaches they are compatible and I subsequently looked into Theistic evolution and found it made some sense. But I kind of left it alone because it ultimately was not the biggest spiritual concern in my life.


Peace.


The difference is in how the RCC/ELCA and the LCMS view and subscribe to Scripture. The Missouri Synod (and also LCC) subscribe to the Bible as being the inerrant, inspired Word of God and the norm of all teaching and practice of the faith. The ELCA holds that the Bible contains the inerrant, inspired Word of God. The RCC holds that the Bible is the Word of God, but is not the norm of teaching in the Church but rather the Church (magesterium) is the norm.
The context of Genesis leaves no doubt that the days of creation are 24 hour days and that the flood of Genesis 6 was indeed global. Remember, Genesis 3 is where we hear of the very first prophecy of the promise of Christ. If Genesis is debunked as mere myth, the very foundation of our entire faith is put into question as well. This is the position of the LCMS/LCC.


Jay:wave:

[C.F.W. Walther]

The difference is in how the RCC/ELCA and the LCMS view and subscribe to Scripture. The Missouri Synod (and also LCC) subscribe to the Bible as being the inerrant, inspired Word of God and the norm of all teaching and practice of the faith. The ELCA holds that the Bible contains the inerrant, inspired Word of God. The RCC holds that the Bible is the Word of God, but is not the norm of teaching in the Church but rather the Church (magesterium) is the norm.
The context of Genesis leaves no doubt that the days of creation are 24 hour days and that the flood of Genesis 6 was indeed global. Remember, Genesis 3 is where we hear of the very first prophecy of the promise of Christ. If Genesis is debunked as mere myth, the very foundation of our entire faith is put into question as well. This is the position of the LCMS/LCC.


Jay:wave:

What is really sad is that there are around 20 differant "groups?" under the Lutheran name in America. Between some groups the differances seems to be so nominal. They seem to splinter off and then merge again years later. It would seem that to show unity in the Christian community and the world it would be advantageous to increase dialogue between them and really hash out the differances. I know this is somewhat wishfull thinking but it would be a more effective witness to the world. It's allmost like "well the Lutherans can't figure out what is right and agree on it so they must not really know what they are talking about". I mean, who are we trying to impress, ourselves? I know this is a simplistic idea but can you imagine what this does to people looking into joining the Lutheran community? They see us as fragmented and subject to "whims" and windy theological debates. To me it all stems from pride. "Well we're right and you're not" mentality. To me the idelogical division should consist of confessioanl Lutherans (bible, BOC, Augburgs etc.) on one side and all the others on the other. Then "all the others" should just change their names to something other than Lutheran. Like the TFCA "Totaly Fragmented Church's of America" or something like that. I know I'm going to get a lot of static for that comment but I don't really want to cause decension. Just "peace as I give you".

Obviously I'm writing this out of frustration and it probably won't happen. It's just a pipe dream and would not be taken seriously by any church body since none of us will sacrifice "pride" (I'm right and you're not) for unity. To me the devil feeds on this decension and just loves it. He sits back and chuckles and knows that the "Church" can't be an effective witness to the world because of so much in-fighting.

Is it any wonder why there are, more than ever, churches from around the world sending missionaries to the US because we are a going "Godless" and have no impact on our own country? We spend too much time debating on who is right rather than the great commision and our own witness.

I'm just venting and not trying to cause "more devision" GOD NO! It's just my 2 cents worth. Just an opinion----nothing more.






:scratch:

[OrthoCanuck]

We spend too much time debating on who is right rather than the great commision and our own witness.



Good point. Some people would argue that part of the great commision involves fighting errors. But, many (not all) of the 'errors' we constantly fight about are relatively minor issues compared to what we all agree on.


Peace.

[OrthoCanuck]

When I spoke to the LCC pastor a few days ago he had some interesting things to say. First, he suggested my changing churches because of gasoline concerns was not a particularly strong reason to change churches (I'd only save about 5 min of driving one way anyway). But, that led into some interesting discussions about the views of the LCC. Though it could be a bad idea to move my kids into a church where they'd have to wait for communion, it is possible for the older ones to possibly take communion (though it is up to the congregation) since they have done so in exceptional circumstances. And the practice of witholding communion until confirmation age was the basic practice of most western churches up to the middle of last century (I never thought of that before). But the really eye opening stuff involved same-sex marriage.

I've always been quite a conservative with regards to marriage and am opposed to SSM. He pointed out that SSM is actually only a small part of the bigger issue. The bigger issue being the erosion of marriage in general. The lack of respect for marriage and the increase of common-law marriages, large amounts of irresponsible teens/young adults giving birth outside of any commited relationship, along with SSM are all problems that we need to address. I totally agree and never heard anyone else quite put it that way.

All in all the conversation was extremely productive, though I have no idea what I'm going to do next. I have to figure out something though, it is time to plant some roots and join a congregation on a more stable basis.

Peace.

[ByzantineDixie]

Hey Canada...sounds like this LCC pastor is a straight talker. Having a spiritual leader you can trust is very important. We don't always get a leader we like. We don't always get a leader we feel we can even trust. But we can trust God to provide us with what we need when we need it. I pray your search goes well.

And the practice of witholding communion until confirmation age was the basic practice of most western churches up to the middle of last century (I never thought of that before).

Just an aside because this subject is one in which I have a keen interest...I don't know that I agree with this. If you are interested in the Western Church's practices on communing infants and children and when the practice ceased you might want to read this article (http://users.elknet.net/gehlbach/ic/infant%20comm%20-%2096%20paper.htm). Withholding communion from children, while a basic practice of the Western Church for quite some time...it was not the original practice. (Some fix the date of change at 1215, the 4th Lateran Council, although the article points out it wasn't fully formalized until Trent.) Regardless...in the LCMS / LCC...it is what it is today and the LCMS offer Scriptural and confessional exegeses (http://old.www.lcms.org/ctcr/infbapt.pdf)to support the present day practice of communing older children only after proper study.

[OrthoCanuck]

Regardless...in the LCMS / LCC...it is what it is today and the LCMS offer Scriptural and confessional exegeses (http://old.www.lcms.org/ctcr/infbapt.pdf)to support the present day practice of communing older children only after proper study.


Okay, communing young children isn't a practice as old as I thought, but 800 yrs is still a long time.

I'm also wondering if it would be a sin for me as a father to deny my children the body and blood of Christ by moving them to a congregation where they will no longer be able to commune (even if I find I agree with the theology of the LCC more than the ELCiC)?


Peace.

[ByzantineDixie]

Okay, communing young children isn't a practice as old as I thought, but 800 yrs is still a long time.

Oh I know...it really just amazes me that this has gone uncorrected in some of the Western Churches and now the exegeses of today match the change in practice!!! I guess the poor misguided Church was violating the Scriptures for 1200 years until the Western Council set things right.

I'm also wondering if it would be a sin for me as a father to deny my children the body and blood of Christ by moving them to a congregation where they will no longer be able to commune (even if I find I agree with the theology of the LCC more than the ELCiC)?


You need to make the best decision you can make, guided by prayer and preferably consult with a pastor. Then rest in that decision. If you made a mistake and you were wrong...Christ's sacrifice has covered this error. This is exactly what Martin Luther meant when he said "Sin Boldly".

I know it's a tough decision...but pray about it...talk to both pastors again...and I bet you'll be able to make the best decision possible.

[Protoevangel]

Hi Canadian75,

I understand where you are comming from, I have had the same struggle myself. I just wanted to offer you a few quotes by some Theologians that I have a great deal of respect for. One being Martin Luther, another, Martin Chemnitz, and the last, Jacob Andreae. It is my hope that their explanations will help you understand the issue more clearly.


"I cannot side with the Bohemians in distributing the Lord’s Supper to children, even though I would not call them heretics on that account."
- Martin Luther, Letter to Nicolaus Hausmann (1523); quoted in Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, Vol. III (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1953), p. 383


"It is clear that one cannot deal with infants through the bare preaching of repentance and remission of sins, for that requires hearing (Rom. 10:17), deliberation and meditation (Ps. 119), understanding (Matt. 13:51), which are not found in infants. With regard to the Lord’s Supper Paul says: “Let a man examine himself” [1 Cor. 11:28]. Likewise: “Let him discern the Lord’s body” [1 Cor. 11:29], a thing which cannot be ascribed to infants. Moreover, Christ instituted His Supper for such as had already become His disciples. In the Old Testament infants were circumcised on the eighth day, but they were admitted to the eating of the Passover lamb when they were able to ask: “What do you mean by this service?” (Ex. 12:26). There remains therefore [for infants] of the means of grace in the New Testament only the sacrament of Baptism."
- Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part II, pp. 165-66


"We often exhort our people who have repented to partake frequently of the Lord’s Supper. However, we do not commune the infants, for Paul says: “Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the Lord’s body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself” [1 Cor 11:28-29]. And since the children are not able to examine themselves and, thus, cannot discern the Lord’s body, we think that the ceremony of the baptism is sufficient for their salvation, and also the hidden faith with which the Lord has endowed them. For through this faith they spiritually eat the flesh of Christ, even if they do not, in the communion of the supper, physically eat it."
- The Tübingen Theologians (including Jacob Andreae), Correspondence with the Patriarch of Constantinople (1577), Augsburg and Constantinople (Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1982), p. 143

[alabaster jar]

I wish there was just one sort of Lutheran church, too. If the churches could just have some autonomy via Pastors, maybe it would be possible?

But on the subject of switching because of gas, distance. That is just what I did. I went from 13 miles down to less than five miles. I went to an LCMS and now go to an ELCA. The drive was about twenty five minutes and now it is fifteen; plus, in my old church the girls had choir every Wednesday evening. So it was a lot of running and more stress in the winter months.

Also, my old church started earlier in the morning, before the snow plow comes. In my new church, I may be able to go on snowy days, as it starts much later.

I do not believe in the literal six days, so I don't miss that aspect of LCMS. I think they believe in Jonah being inside a fish for three days, too. Everything is very literal. But I don't come from a position where that is a huge problem--I just don't think in those type of literal terms; probably because I study literature and view the bible through that vein--metaphor, symbalism, etc.

This is probably a shallow reason to be Lutheran, but I feel a tie to it because of ethnicity, as well.

Since the synods do seem to split hairs on things, I really don't mind going to what is closer and what suits me. In fact, it's much easier to go now, whereas before I could make excuses and my old church was so big--I didn't feel all that missed. (although, when I told some that I was leaving, they were very kind and hoped I would be back)

[filosofer]

I do not believe in the literal six days, so I don't miss that aspect of LCMS. I think they believe in Jonah being inside a fish for three days, too. Everything is very literal. But I don't come from a position where that is a huge problem--I just don't think in those type of literal terms; probably because I study literature and view the bible through that vein--metaphor, symbalism, etc.




While it is important to consider literature as it is written, i.e., the genre, it is equally important not to change the writing to suit something that we can "accept" intellectually. In other words, if the piece is written as history, it is an injustice to the text to say that it is not history. And note that metaphors and symbolism are figures of speech/writing, not genre. So even historical writers can use metaphor and symbolism, but that does not negate the historical nature of the text.

In Christ's love,
filo

[LutherNut]

I do not believe in the literal six days, so I don't miss that aspect of LCMS. I think they believe in Jonah being inside a fish for three days, too. Everything is very literal. But I don't come from a position where that is a huge problem--I just don't think in those type of literal terms; probably because I study literature and view the bible through that vein--metaphor, symbalism, etc.

The one major difference between LCMS and ELCA is how we view Scripture. The ELCA does not believe that everything in the Bible is the Word of God, so they can pick and choose what they want to believe. The LCMS holds that everything between Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21 is the inspired inerrant Word of God and the norm of all teaching and practice of the faith. That is a huge difference.

The reason that the ELCA does not hold to the literal creation account is because they view the writings of the Torah (Genesis - Deuteronomy) as coming from multiple authors over a long period of time. The LCMS believes the words of Jesus who refers to these books as the writings of Moses. Personally, I will believe Jesus before I will believe the ELCA;) .

Biblical literature is a different kind of animal because it is written in a variety of genres. Much of Genesis is an historical account. There is nothing in the context of Genesis that suggests that the six days of Creation are anything but 6 consecutive 24 hour days. This is also supported by numerous mentions of the Creation account throughout the Bible including the New Testament. It is near impossible for the New Testament Church to discount the literal six days of Creation as a myth or simply a metaphor.


Jay


PS - My CF character has a huge crush on your CF character! :blush:

[Qoheleth]

"We often exhort our people who have repented to partake frequently of the Lord’s Supper. However, we do not commune the infants, for Paul says: “Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the Lord’s body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself” [1 Cor 11:28-29]. And since the children are not able to examine themselves and, thus, cannot discern the Lord’s body, we think that the ceremony of the baptism is sufficient for their salvation, and also the hidden faith with which the Lord has endowed them. For through this faith they spiritually eat the flesh of Christ, even if they do not, in the communion of the supper, physically eat it."
- The Tübingen Theologians (including Jacob Andreae), Correspondence with the Patriarch of Constantinople (1577), Augsburg and Constantinople (Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1982), p. 143



But if our baptized infants are truly to be counted among the faithful, then they are also among those “who are already in terror on account of their sins.” They are penitent and believing. They are not to have the law and its accusations preached to them. They are not to be denied the absolution, but rather given its comfort and strength.

The Augsburg Confession says,

True repentance is nothing else than to have contrition and sorrow, or terror on account of sin, and yet at the same time to believe the Gospel and absolution (namely, that sin has been forgiven and grace has been obtained through Christ), and this faith will comfort the heart and again set it at rest.

If we believe our theology of Baptism, then we believe that this is the condition of the baptized infant.

And yet we continue to speak law to these terrified but believing hearts, because we hear the words we have spoken for centuries; the words summed up in the explanation of the Catechism, “Who must not be given the Sacrament? Those who are unable to examine themselves, such as infants, . . . 1 Cor. 11:28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.” The unspoken syllogism here needs to be challenged. Yes, a man must examine himself. This premise is undeniable, for it is inspired. But the second premise, that the infant cannot examine himself, is neither inspired nor is it based on a thorough study of Scripture and the Confessions. It is an assumption: a legalistic, tradition-shaped assumption, which needs to be reexamined and replaced with the true premise found in the Scriptures and the Confessions. In both Scripture and the Confessions examining oneself is not an act of intellect, but an act of repentance, and therefore an act that God is quite capable of bringing about within the baptized infant. Indeed it is an act He has already brought about and has promised to sustain. (The Rev. Scott M. Marincic)

Q

[Qoheleth]

"I cannot side with the Bohemians in distributing the Lord’s Supper to children, even though I would not call them heretics on that account."
- Martin Luther, Letter to Nicolaus Hausmann (1523); quoted in Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, Vol. III (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1953), p. 383


The theology and practice of the Hussites should be especially important to Lutherans, for Luther himself accepted the Roman charge that he was a Hussite, even though he had not known it. Also in his letter to Hausman in the year 1523, Luther wrote, “I cannot side with the Bohemians [Hussites] in distributing the Lord’s Supper to children, even though I would not call them heretics on that account.” So in 1523 Luther would not declare infant communion heresy, even though he felt uncomfortable with the practice.

But in 1533 Luther seems to have progressed more along Hussite lines:


For, God be praised, in our churches we can show a Christian a true Christian mass according to the ordinance and institution of Christ, as well as according to the true intention of Christ and the church. There our pastor, bishop or minister in the pastoral office, rightly and honorably and publicly called, having been previously consecrated, anointed, and born in baptism as a priest of Christ, without regard to the private chrism, goes before the altar. Publicly and plainly he sings what Christ has ordained and instituted in the Lord’s Supper. He takes the bread and wine, gives thanks, distributes and gives them to the rest of us who are there and want to receive them, on the strength of the words of Christ: “This is My body, this is My blood. Do this,” etc. Particularly we who want to receive the sacrament kneel beside, behind, and around him, man, woman, young, old, master, servant, wife, maid, parents, and children, even as God brings us together there, all of us true, holy priests, sanctified by Christ’s blood, anointed by the Holy Spirit and consecrated in baptism [emphasis added].


This more Hussite Luther appears also in 1539 when he writes:


Third, God’s people, or Christian holy people, are recognized by the holy sacrament of the altar, wherever it is rightly administered, believed, and received, according to Christ’s institution. This too is a public sign and a precious, holy possession left behind by Christ by which his people are sanctified so that they also exercise themselves in faith and openly confess that they are Christian, just as they do with the word and with baptism. And here too you need not be disturbed if the pope does not say mass for you, does not consecrate, anoint, or vest you with a chasuble. Indeed, you may, like a patient in bed, receive this sacrament without wearing any garb, except that outward decency obliges you to be properly covered. Moreover, you need not ask whether you have a tonsure or are anointed. In addition, the question of whether you are male or female, young or old, need not be argued—just as little as it matters in baptism and the preached word. It is enough that you are consecrated and anointed with the sublime and holy chrism of God, with the word of God, with baptism, and also with this sacrament; then you are highly and gloriously enough and sufficiently vested with priestly garments [emphasis added].

Keeping in mind that Luther as early as 1523 would not declare infant communion heresy, and by 1533 and 1539 would even speak in favor of communing the baptized regardless of age. (The Rev. Scott M. Marincic)

Q

[Qoheleth]

"It is clear that one cannot deal with infants through the bare preaching of repentance and remission of sins, for that requires hearing (Rom. 10:17), deliberation and meditation (Ps. 119), understanding (Matt. 13:51), which are not found in infants. With regard to the Lord’s Supper Paul says: “Let a man examine himself” [1 Cor. 11:28]. Likewise: “Let him discern the Lord’s body” [1 Cor. 11:29], a thing which cannot be ascribed to infants. Moreover, Christ instituted His Supper for such as had already become His disciples. In the Old Testament infants were circumcised on the eighth day, but they were admitted to the eating of the Passover lamb when they were able to ask: “What do you mean by this service?” (Ex. 12:26). There remains therefore [for infants] of the means of grace in the New Testament only the sacrament of Baptism."
- Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part II, pp. 165-66

For those who are suspect of anything Philippist, we also have Chemnitz, the second Martin. In interpreting I Cor. 11:29 in his The Lord’s Supper Chemnitz writes:


"He [Paul] has already explained in the preceding verses what it means to eat unworthily. But why and how can it be that men are not afraid to approach this holy table of the Lord with such security, ignorance, frivolity, temerity, and impurity as to eat this Supper unworthily?"

Chemnitz points out that the unworthy eating is defined by the verses previous to I Corinthians 11:27, the verses in which their unrepentant behavior is detailed. He does not yet point us ahead to the statement regarding the discerning of the body. The essence of unworthy eating is unrepentant eating. But how is it that the Corinthians have come to such unrepentant eating? Chemnitz responds:

"Paul answers that it happens because they do not distinguish or discern the Lord’s body. . . . He requires this kind of discrimination, so that we might discern the bread of this Supper, distinguish it from other bread, acknowledge His true honor, and in accordance with His Word attribute to Him by our discernment the preeminence which is due Him."


There is a temptation at this point to use Chemnitz as support for the need for intellectual discernment. But the force of Chemnitz’s argument is not intellectual, but penitential. Those who do not discern the body are guilty because they do not honor the Lord. By treating Him as common, even though they have been taught better, they insult Him and reveal their unrepentance. That Chemnitz is speaking to impenitent disregard for the real presence and not to the Christian whose knowledge is simply deficient is brought out when he says:

"Surely on the basis of this statement the frivolity, brashness, security, and impudence of the human mind, which plays and cogitates on the various interpretations of these words, ought to be struck down as by a thunderbolt. For it is horrible to fall under the guilt of divine judgment because of not discerning the Lord’s body."

Read entirely within their logical context, Chemnitz’s words reinforce the Scriptural and Confessional doctrine that repentant faith, sealed in Baptism is the only prerequisite for the Supper.

This concern for repentance is echoed by Chemnitz in his Enchiridion. There we have,

"What, then, is the true and salutary use of the Lord’s Supper? When the ordinance and command of Christ are observed, namely that we eat His body and drink His blood, and do that in remembrance of Him, that is, with a penitent heart and in true faith” [emphasis added].


In listing the benefits of the Supper Chemnitz writes:

"Since nothing good, but only sin, dwells in our flesh, whence extremely many evil fruits continually sprout and come forth, therefore Christ, in His Supper, offers us His most holy body and blood, so that, engrafted by this communion as branches in Him who is the true vine, we might draw thence new, good, and spiritual sap. Thus we are also joined most closely by this communion with other Christians as members of the one body of Christ (I Co 10:17), so that mutual love toward the neighbor is enkindled, increased and preserved in us."

The need for the Supper is just as great for the infant, and his engrafting to the true vine and to his fellow Christians is just as real.

But most convincingly from this work of Chemnitz is where he writes on worthiness and unworthiness:

"Who, then, are they that eat and drink unworthily in the Lord’s Supper, so that we might learn to guard the more carefully against that unworthiness?

That unworthiness does not consist in this, that we miserable sinners are unworthy of that heavenly food. For that food is prepared and intended especially for sinners. But the following are they that eat unworthily, as one can very clearly gather from Paul, I Cor 11:

I. They that do not discern the body of the Lord, that is [they] that do not hold that the very sacred food of this Supper is the body and blood of Christ, but handle and use it with no greater reverence and devotion than other common foods."


I want to quote more from Chemnitz in a moment, but first a need for comment. As we interpret Chemnitz here we must either reject what he says as unconfessional, or we must square it with what the Catechisms and the Formula of Concord say regarding worthiness. If Chemnitz is to be accepted, then these statements must concur with the Confessions which state that unworthiness is nothing more than impenitence, and worthiness is nothing more than repentant faith.

With this in mind, either do not quote Chemnitz against me, or admit that the concern here is with the irreverence and lack of devotion of those who deny the real presence, not with the Christian who has never been taught the truth, or whose understanding is faulty. When Chemnitz says that those who do not discern the body are unworthy to commune, either he is wrong, or by those who do not discern he means the unbeliever, for the Formula of Concord binds us to confess, “We believe, teach, and confess that there is only one kind of unworthy guest, namely, those who do not believe.” I choose to accept Chemnitz and interpret his words as elaboration on forms of unbelief.


Chemnitz continues to elaborate on who is unworthy:


"II. They that continue in sins without repentance and have and retain not the intent to lead a better life, but rather continue in sin, as Paul rebukes this very thing in some Corinthians. . . .



III. They that come to this Supper without true faith, namely they that either seek the grace of God, forgiveness of sins, and eternal salvation elsewhere than alone in the merit of Christ, or who, steeped in Epicurean security, hunger and thirst, with no true desires, after righteousness, that is, the grace of God in Christ, reconciliation, and salvation. For he that does not believe will be condemned, though he uses the Word and the Sacraments."

Here again Chemnitz interprets I Corinthians 11 in terms of unrepentance, and ties the whole issue to that of repentant faith versus impenitent unbelief. This is further enforced when he writes:

"But since life itself dwells in the body of Christ, what kind of cause of death can then exist for those that eat unworthily?


That does not result from this, that the Lord’s body per se is a deadly poison, but that they who eat unworthily sin against the body of Christ by Epicurean security and impenitence, and do it wrong by their unworthy eating, and, as it were, tread [it] underfoot."

That Chemnitz considers only the impenitent unworthy is reinforced by whom he considers worthy. This we find in his words on how one should examine himself:

" How, then, should a man examine or look into himself, so that he might eat and drink worthily in the holy Supper?

This worthy eating does not consist in a man’s purity, holiness, or perfection. For they who are healthy do not need a doctor, but they who are not healthy (Mt 9:12). But, by way of contrast with the unworthy, one can understand very easily how that examination or exploration is to be undertaken, namely:

" First, let the mind consider of what nature the act of this Supper is, who is present there, [and] what kind of food is offered and taken there, so that one might prepare himself with due humility and piety for its reception."

Second, let a man about to approach the Lord’s Table be endowed with the kind of heart that seriously acknowledges his sins and errors, and shudders at the wrath of God, and does not delight in sin, but is troubled and grieved , and has the earnest purpose to amend [his life].

Third, that the mind sincerely give itself to this concern, that it might not perish in sins under the wrath of God, and therefore with ardent desire thirst for and long for the grace of God, so that [b]by true faith in the obedience, passion, and death of Christ, that is, in the offering of [His] body and shedding of His blood it seek, beg, lay hold on and apply to itself the grace of God, forgiveness of sins, and salvation. He that examines and prepares himself in this way, he truly uses this Sacrament worthily, not unto judgment, but unto salvation" [emphasis added]."


What Chemnitz describes here is nothing more than the Catechisms and the Formula of Concord say: That one who knows repentance and faith is worthy to receive the Supper for salvation. For forgiveness of sins, life and salvation are the gifts of God to the baptized, and what God gives in Baptism He will not take away in the Supper. (Rev. Scott Marincic)


Q

[KEPLER]

There is nothing in the context of Genesis that suggests that the six days of Creation are anything but 6 consecutive 24 hour days. This is also supported by numerous mentions of the Creation account throughout the Bible including the New Testament. It is near impossible for the New Testament Church to discount the literal six days of Creation as a myth or simply a metaphor.

LN,

With all due respect...this is an area of Christian freedom.

As I mentioned in a post elsewhere, I take God's Word (both Christ and the Scriptures) very seriously. So when I read in Genesis 1 that the Sun and Moon are created on the 4th day, I must understand "morning and evening" in the first three days as something other than what I know as "morning and evening". It is the TEXT itself which leads me to that conlcusion, not any outside evidence: this is strictly analogia fidei. In fact, the opposite is true: to say, "Morning and evening" must be 24 hour days," is to put MY EXPERIENCE of what defines "morning and evening" OVER the biblical witness.

The same holds true for Genesis 2: "because it had not rained" is used by the text as an explantory phrase, implying that a natural order of Providence was already in place during creation. This does NOT nullify creatio ex nihilo, it just explains it.

Two references I provided on the other posting are:
"Because it had not rained" (1958): http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/WTJ/WTJ58Kline.html
and
"Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony": http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1996/PSCF3-96Kline.html

Meredith Kline is an Old testament scholar (at Westminster Theological Seminary) from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, which is (sort of) the Presbyterian equivalent of the Wisconsin Synod. He is ULTRA conservative and has fought against biblical criticism and liberalism for his entire career. Under no circumstances may his opinion be dismissed as "liberal" or not respectful of Biblical authority. Reject it if you will, but not for those reasons.

Peace,

Eric

[LutherNut]

With all due respect...this is an area of Christian freedom.

The Word of God is "an area of Christian freedom"? I don't think so.

Scripture interprets Scripture. The text of Genesis and the text of Scripture as a whole leave no other interpretation than 6 consecutive 24 hour days. Does the text say "Sun and Moon" or does it say "greater light and lesser light"?
Also, "evening and morning" are times of day and are not dependant upon the sun and moon, but rather "light and darkness" - "day and night" which occur before the first "evening and morning".

Don't read more into the text than is there. What is there is more than sufficient to show 6 consecutive 24 hour days.


Jay

[KEPLER]

Jay,

The Word of God is "an area of Christian freedom"? I don't think so.
Hmmm, I think you know that that is not what I meant. In fact, that mischaracterization of what I said is somewhat beyond the bounds of a reasonable misunderstanding...

Scripture interprets Scripture.
I agree completely. In fact, I already said that:
It is the TEXT itself which leads me to that conlcusion, not any outside evidence: this is strictly analogia fidei.

Analogia Fidei, or "Analogy of Faith." That is, Biblical doctrines are to be interpreted in relation to the basic message of the Bible, the Gospel, the content of faith, often called The Faith. Cf.1 Cor.2:13, 15:1-4. Also, "Scripturam ex Scriptura explicandam esse", or "Scripture is to be explained by Scripture."

The text of Genesis and the text of Scripture as a whole leave no other interpretation than 6 consecutive 24 hour days. Does the text say "Sun and Moon" or does it say "greater light and lesser light"?
It says neither. It says:
And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, 15and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. 16And God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars. 17And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. Gen 1:14-18a
There is NO DOUBT what those (greater light/lesser light) mean: the sun and the moon. Show me any interpreter who has ever said otherwise...? And while we're looking at this, what is that in verse 18 about separating the light from the darkness? Didn't God already do that in verse 4???? Hmmm.

Also, "evening and morning" are times of day and are not dependant upon the sun and moon, but rather "light and darkness" - "day and night" which occur before the first "evening and morning".

Indeed...day and night. And yet God says that the VERY things which "give light" (Gen 1:17) and had as their purpose "to separate the light from the darkness" were not created until the fourth day. Hmmmm...

Now at this point, I have one of three options:1) I can simply overlook this and stick to the six literal days ...which is certainly an option, and I'm NOT criticizing it...but it has its own difficulties.
2) I can scream out "Oh look the bible contradicts itself!" and give up my faith and run and join a commune...
3) I can step back from a literalistic interpretation and conclude (because of no other reason than the text itself) that something OTHER than six literal consecutive days is going on here.
#2 is not an option, because God does not contradict himself, which leaves me with 1 or 3.

Personally, I go for option number three, and IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM does this mean that I am lowering my view of Scripture. I still believe in the complete inspiration and absolute authority of Scripture.

Don't read more into the text than is there. What is there is more than sufficient to show 6 consecutive 24 hour days.

I didn't read anything into anything; I read only what is there.

Now, mind you, I'm NOT criticizing ANYONE who decides that they prefer the "Six 24 hour days" approach. If that's the position you're comfortable with, good! Stick to it. The reason I spoke up here was merely to provide a word of caution: while it's true (perhaps I should say, I agree) that the LCMS has a higher view than the ELCA of the inspiration and authority of Scripture, you chose to pinpoint an issue on which Christians are free to hold varying views, EVEN WHEN THEY HOLD THE HIGH VIEW ON SCRIPTURE. You spoke as if Christians who hold to the inspiration and authority of Scripture HAD TO share your view on Genesis. You said:

Much of Genesis is an historical account. There is nothing in the context of Genesis that suggests that the six days of Creation are anything but 6 consecutive 24 hour days.

Oh, yes there is...go back and read my post. Read the articles from the links. I'm not suggesting that you MUST believe it, but if you're going to make an assertion like you made, intellectual honesty demands that you (at the very least) examine arguments from scholars far more experienced than yourself. And as I said, Dr Kline is no liberal. As a Professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, he subscribed an allegiance to Scripture EVERY BIT as rigorous as what Ft. Wayne and St. Louis demand of our Professors.

This is also supported by numerous mentions of the Creation account throughout the Bible including the New Testament. It is near impossible for the New Testament Church to discount the literal six days of Creation as a myth or simply a metaphor.

Now I will grant that you said "near impossible" and not "completely impossible"...so perhaps you didn't mean to sound as exclusive as you did. On the other hand, in the follow up post to me you DID say "leave no other interpretation" which actually is exclusive, now isn't it? Regardless, my position does not assert myth. And I'm not sure metahpor is the right word, either.

Excursus on "metaphor": One of the Messianic Pslams tells us that Messiah would be hung on a tree. Of course, I take that as absolutely true, but also as figurative. Christ was crucified on two beams which at one point had been a tree. Does anyone deny this? The prophecy was both dead-on accurate and figurative at the same time. Was the Psalmist's use of the word "tree" a metaphor? I guess, but "metaphor" seems too squishy for me. I don't know what the right word is...

The context of this thread was Canadian's question about "Why LCC/LCMS?" The point you made delineating the difference between the way the LCMS and the ELCA view Scripture is an EXCELLENT and salient point. Using the interpretation of Genesis as an illustration, however, was not. When you use that as an example, it makes it sound as if to be LCMS one must hold to YOUR view of Genesis, which is not the case. That could have been misleading to Canadian. That's the only reason I spoke up.

One last point: just because I'm suggesting that six literal consecutive days does not satisfy my reading of Genesis does NOT therefore imply that I am advocating any other position (i.e., evolution of any variety). That will be obvious to the careful reader, but I thought I'd say it just in case...

[Zoomer]

I am LCMS because I feel that ELCA has strayed away from true Lutheranism. If anything ELCA is becoming more Episcopalian than Lutheran. I am just waiting for a total merge with the ECUSA.
I am not saying that the LCMS is perfect, it has it issues, but it is closer to what Martin Luther had in mind. I also disagree with the ELCA views on contemporary issues such as women in ministry, abortion, communion, interpretation of Scriputures. Some of the views, I believe to be unBiblical.

[nb_christseeker]

The important thing here, is to not allow satan to drive a wedge between y'all over an argument about knowledge. remember that tree we werent spose to eat from? lets eat together from the tree of life, Christ.

Ultimately you ought to have full agape love for one another, and thats what always gets lost in these debates. Knowledge puffs up, but Love builds up. Would God rather have people all agree on an interpretation of the genesis account, or would he rather have people all love each other fully and completely as Christ loves us? if the 6 day thing was that imperative for the sake of salvation, Christ would have mentioned it. judge for yourself which takes priority, love or knowledge. not that debate is bad, so long as it builds up. but the edifying aspect is often lost in exchange for foolish pride. im right your wrong kinda mentality.

so take heed lest you fall, and just take things in stride so you can love each other.

Peace to you and grace, in the name of our resurrected Lord Yeshua Christ. Amen.

[KEPLER]

The important thing here, is to not allow satan to drive a wedge between y'all over an argument about knowledge. remember that tree we werent spose to eat from? lets eat together from the tree of life, Christ.

I'm sorry this just can't go unaddressed...

Regardless of this disagreement that Jay and I have, nb_christseeker, I'm pretty sure that he and I both would point out to you that the tree from which Adam and Eve (yes, the real, historical Adam and Eve!) were not allowed to eat was NOT the "Tree of Knowledge", but the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil".

Peter tells us to be prepared with an answer for those who question us about our hope, and Paul tells Timothy to rightly divide the Word of Truth. BOTH of those activites require the pursuit of knowledge. The type of anti-Intellectualism that you appear to be espousing is contrary to the Christian faith. Yes we are to love one another, no one denies that. I love Jay, he's a brother. A knowledgeable brother. But it is not a vapid or empty love. It is a love informed by the teachings (i.e., knowledge) which have been passed on to us from the time of the Apostles to now.

Peace,

Eric

[LutherNut]

The context of this thread was Canadian's question about "Why LCC/LCMS?" The point you made delineating the difference between the way the LCMS and the ELCA view Scripture is an EXCELLENT and salient point. Using the interpretation of Genesis as an illustration, however, was not. When you use that as an example, it makes it sound as if to be LCMS one must hold to YOUR view of Genesis, which is not the case. That could have been misleading to Canadian. That's the only reason I spoke up.




I do know that the seminaries in Fort Wayne and St. Louis both hold to the six literal days of Creation in Genesis. This is what they teach.

Also from the LCMS website:


It has generally been taught in our church that unless there is a compelling reason, on the basis of the biblical texts themselves, to understand the six days of the Genesis accounts as anything other than normal 24-hour days, we are to believe that God created the world in six 24-hour days (see Luther's Small Catechism with Explanation, Question 97 [CPH, 1986, p. 106]).


This I hold, teach, and confess.:)


The Unshod 'Nut;)

[KEPLER]

The context of this thread was Canadian's question about "Why LCC/LCMS?" The point you made delineating the difference between the way the LCMS and the ELCA view Scripture is an EXCELLENT and salient point. Using the interpretation of Genesis as an illustration, however, was not. When you use that as an example, it makes it sound as if to be LCMS one must hold to YOUR view of Genesis, which is not the case. That could have been misleading to Canadian. That's the only reason I spoke up.
I do know that the seminaries in Fort Wayne and St. Louis both hold to the six literal days of Creation in Genesis. This is what they teach.
Yes, the seminaries hold to and teach...but they do not compel the seminarians themselves to follow suit, i.e., there is no "exit interview" or any such "litmus test" to make sure that the seminarians hold to the literalist 6x24 hour day, etc.

Many LCMS pastors are comfortable asserting the following, and nothing more:
God created the world, ex nihilo, and it was good.
God created humanity, Adam and Eve, as special beings with dominion over creation.
Adam and Eve are real historic persons.
Adam and Eve sinned against God, thereby bringing sin and death to all the world.
Death was not part of the Creator's intent.
God promised, immediately after the sin of Adam and Eve, to bring redemption to the World.

Also from the LCMS website:

It has generally been taught in our church that unless there is a compelling reason, on the basis of the biblical texts themselves, to understand the six days of the Genesis accounts as anything other than normal 24-hour days, we are to believe that God created the world in six 24-hour days (see Luther's Small Catechism with Explanation, Question 97 [CPH, 1986, p. 106]).
This I hold, teach, and confess.:)

The operative word here is "generally". It does not say "absolutely". Furthermore, that phrase "compelling reason" leaves the door cracked open just enough to allow other viewpoints, as long as those viewpoints (like mine) maintain a Biblical & Confessional position. In other words, the LCMS, in its wisdom, has NOT made it a necessity of church membership that one MUST hold to a "literal 6x24 hour day" view. I need say nothing more.

What a potential new member to the LCMS should take away from this discussion is this: Generally, the LCMS has held to a "literal 6x24 hour day" interpretation of Genesis. There are those in the Church, however, who hold to other views, and as long as those views maintain the absolute authority and inspiration of Scripture, and do not violate the Confessions, they too are acceptable.

ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT NOTE, Jay...would you agree with my response above to nb-christseeker??

Eric

[nb_christseeker]

true, we should be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. and it was in fact the tree of knowledge of good and evil. but at the same time, isnt it interesting how arguments over knowledge can drive people to hate/notlove one another? or do you disagree on that point

[KEPLER]

true, we should be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. and it was in fact the tree of knowledge of good and evil. but at the same time, isnt it interesting how arguments over knowledge can drive people to hate/notlove one another? or do you disagree on that point

What I find sad is that so many people misinterpret Scripture and force the issues. Your denigration of knowledge is one such misinterpretation, and one that is, sadly, all too common. However, it is precisely because I love my brothers and sisters in Christ that I must correct them.

A father who disciplines his child is not acting hateful, is he? Why is correcting false doctrine "hateful"? The truly hateful thing to do would be to not do anything. Apathy is hateful.

[saami]

Okay, communing young children isn't a practice as old as I thought, but 800 yrs is still a long time.

I'm also wondering if it would be a sin for me as a father to deny my children the body and blood of Christ by moving them to a congregation where they will no longer be able to commune (even if I find I agree with the theology of the LCC more than the ELCiC)?


Peace.

How would you feel if you child cried out loudly when denied the sacrament of the altar "Daddy, doesn't Jesus love me anymore?" I have seen it has happened many times. If you believe that the Body and Blood of Christ is present for the forgiveness of sins, and your child is a sinner who needs forgiving, whay would you deny them that forgiveness and spiritual nourishment?

[saami]

Generally, the LCMS has held to a "literal 6x24 hour day" interpretation of Genesis. There are those in the Church, however, who hold to other views, and as long as those views maintain the absolute authority and inspiration of Scripture, and do not violate the Confessions, they too are acceptable.


How could they measure a 24 hour day before the sun was created on "day" 4?

And Gen 2:7 God formed the "adam" [earthling or male only?] from the "adamah" earth on the 6th day (Gen 1:27 "male and female" )or before the plants grew on the 3rd day (Gen 1:11)?

Which verse do I take literally and which do I not - thus bending some part of the Word? See - even we who belive the Bible is the Word of God can see that we do not take every verse equally literally, but bend and shape our understanding.

LCMS and Fundamentalism shapes it their way, other shape it another way - neither denying the value of Scripture, but questioning our interpretation of it.

And of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" isn't that what made us moral decision makers - a role we love "I'm right and you're wrong" ?

[KEPLER]

How could they measure a 24 hour day before the sun was created on "day" 4?

And Gen 2:7 God formed the "adam" [earthling or male only?] from the "adamah" earth on the 6th day (Gen 1:27 "male and female" )or before the plants grew on the 3rd day (Gen 1:11)?

Which verse do I take literally and which do I not - thus bending some part of the Word? See - even we who belive the Bible is the Word of God can see that we do not take every verse equally literally, but bend and shape our understanding.

LCMS and Fundamentalism shapes it their way, other shape it another way - neither denying the value of Scripture, but questioning our interpretation of it.

And of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" isn't that what made us moral decision makers - a role we love "I'm right and you're wrong" ?

Hi Zion,

Wow, you're dredging up all the old posts! Good, the board has been bored lately..! I hope you drew from the context that I'm not one of the "literal 6x24 hour" dayers. I agree in fact that a genuinely biblical (and literal) reading really doesn't allow for it. Jay will argue otherwise, and of course, I respect his right to do so, as long as he refrains from scolding me for being a bad Lutheran. That's when I open up a can of whoop-a$$. ( :wave: Hi, Jay!)

I subscribe more to the "Framework interpretation" of Meredith Kline, which sees the "days" not in a chronological sense, but in a typological sense. Yes, they describe real actions of God, but their purpose in so describing is to create a witness to our ultimate Eschatological purpose, which is to rest with God (a la Hebrews chapter 4 and our hope of a sabbath rest).

In a nutshell, I read Genesis as a theologcal book, and not as a science book.

Cheers,

Eric

[LutherNut]

How would you feel if you child cried out loudly when denied the sacrament of the altar "Daddy, doesn't Jesus love me anymore?" I have seen it has happened many times. If you believe that the Body and Blood of Christ is present for the forgiveness of sins, and your child is a sinner who needs forgiving, whay would you deny them that forgiveness and spiritual nourishment?

If the child is not able to examine himself, he cannot receive the Sacrament worthily and therefore will not be receiving "forgiveness and spiritual nourishment" but rather would be committing sin which leads to judgement.
See 1 Corinthians 11:27.



How could they measure a 24 hour day before the sun was created on "day" 4?



Does God need the sun in order to know what a day is or how long it is?
See Genesis 1:5


Jay:wave:

[ByzantineDixie]

If the child is not able to examine himself, he cannot receive the Sacrament worthily and therefore will not be receiving "forgiveness and spiritual nourishment" but rather would be committing sin which leads to judgement.
See 1 Corinthians 11:27.


So...what about the first 1200 years of church history and all those infants and children who received? Do you think the Roman church got a special revelation regarding the true meaning of 1 Cor 11:27 in the 13th Century theretofore unknown?

Even Luther admited the statement regarding examination did not apply to infants and childrens.

If Lutheranism is the continuation of the church catholic...where did infant communion go?

[KEPLER]

If the child is not able to examine himself, he cannot receive the Sacrament worthily and therefore will not be receiving "forgiveness and spiritual nourishment" but rather would be committing sin which leads to judgement.
See 1 Corinthians 11:27.

I confess that this whole "infant communion" thing is new to me...and I have not yet formed an opinion about it. But it seems, Jay, thatthese are merely reductions of the same baptist asguments about infant baptism, ala "Scripture says you have to believe first", or "Scripture says you have to repent first". It's true Scripture makes those implications, but we have reasons for believing otherwise. How do we know that this is not also the case here?

On the other hand, Dixie, how does a proponent of infant comuunion argue around Jay's objection? Communion, it seems to me, is indeed somewhat different than the case of infant baptism...?

Eric

[Kotton]

Does God need the sun in order to know what a day is or how long it is?
See Genesis 1:5


Jay:wave: [/QUOTE]

My King James Says" And the evening and the morning were the first day, second day, third day... etc. " Apparently it was just the time from from evening to morning, the night, about 12 hours, depending on what season it was and whether or not God was on Daylight Savings time. :confused: Perhaps he did it in 1/2 the time previously thought! In any case our God is an awsome God!!

[ByzantineDixie]

On the other hand, Dixie, how does a proponent of infant comuunion argue around Jay's objection? Communion, it seems to me, is indeed somewhat different than the case of infant baptism...?

Eric

Here are a couple of papers which deal with precisely this issue (written by LCMS Lutherans no less):

Truly Worthy and Well Prepared--Marincic (http://users.elknet.net/gehlbach/IC/Papers/Truly%20Worthy%202001.htm)
The Discontinuance of the Practice of Communing Infants in the Western Church--Gehlbach (http://users.elknet.net/gehlbach/IC/Papers/infant%20comm%20-%2096%20paper.htm)

And here's a little something Luther said regarding examining oneself for communion:

...However, it doesn’t follow that the children are damned who either do not pray or are not afflicted. When in I Corinthians [11:28] Paul said that a man should examine himself, he spoke only of adults because he was speaking about those who were quarreling among themselves. However, he doesn’t here forbid that the sacrament of the altar be given even to children.

From what I can tell the only thing keeping infants from communion at Lutheran tables is a tradition established by the papacy in the middle ages...and a modern interpretation of 1 Cor. 11 that the church historically had never maintained. YIKES....a tradition of men and an innovation regarding Scriptural interpretation...that ought to raise an eyebrow or two! ;)

[KEPLER]

Here are a couple of papers which deal with precisely this issue (written by LCMS Lutherans no less):

Truly Worthy and Well Prepared--Marincic (http://users.elknet.net/gehlbach/IC/Papers/Truly%20Worthy%202001.htm)
The Discontinuance of the Practice of Communing Infants in the Western Church--Gehlbach (http://users.elknet.net/gehlbach/IC/Papers/infant%20comm%20-%2096%20paper.htm)

And here's a little something Luther said regarding examining oneself for communion:

...However, it doesn’t follow that the children are damned who either do not pray or are not afflicted. When in I Corinthians [11:28] Paul said that a man should examine himself, he spoke only of adults because he was speaking about those who were quarreling among themselves. However, he doesn’t here forbid that the sacrament of the altar be given even to children.

From what I can tell the only thing keeping infants from communion at Lutheran tables is a tradition established by the papacy in the middle ages...and a modern interpretation of 1 Cor. 11 that the church historically had never maintained. YIKES....a tradition of men and an innovation regarding Scriptural interpretation...that ought to raise an eyebrow or two! ;)

Thanks for the links Dixie, I will look at them...(anything to avoid the dissertation, you know!)

[saami]

Hi Zion,

Wow, you're dredging up all the old posts! Good, the board has been bored lately..! I hope you drew from the context that I'm not one of the "literal 6x24 hour" dayers. I agree in fact that a genuinely biblical (and literal) reading really doesn't allow for it. Jay will argue otherwise, and of course, I respect his right to do so, as long as he refrains from scolding me for being a bad Lutheran. That's when I open up a can of whoop-a$$. ( :wave: Hi, Jay!)

I subscribe more to the "Framework interpretation" of Meredith Kline, which sees the "days" not in a chronological sense, but in a typological sense. Yes, they describe real actions of God, but their purpose in so describing is to create a witness to our ultimate Eschatological purpose, which is to rest with God (a la Hebrews chapter 4 and our hope of a sabbath rest).

In a nutshell, I read Genesis as a theologcal book, and not as a science book.

Cheers,

Eric

Eric - I didn't realise that the posting I was quoting was so old. I do find a thread now and then and just start reading. Interesting thing, however is that I was just having this discussion in the "real" world the day before.

I agree that the "framework" makes sense for me. My systematic theology professor who was also a theoretical physicist showed us time again how we did not have to abandon faith to listen and appreciate science/math. We don't have to make a false choice.

The "choice" is after all to hold to Gen. 1:1 and John 1:3 God made the world through the Logos and the Ruach/Pnuema and Jesus is the Word Incarnate who saves us.

Unfortunately Kansas does not agree with us.

[saami]

If the child is not able to examine himself, he cannot receive the Sacrament worthily and therefore will not be receiving "forgiveness and spiritual nourishment" but rather would be committing sin which leads to judgement.
See 1 Corinthians 11:27.





Jay:wave:

Are any of us able to fully examine ourselves? Isn't that the very task that drove Luther to dispair? When we "confess" before a worship service I remember as a pre-communing/pre-confirmed child doing so and meaning it -

"I a poor miserable sinner confess unto thee all my sins and inquities with which I have ever offended thee and justly deserve thy temporal and eternal punishment. But I am heartily sorry for them and sincerely repent of them and I pray thee of thy boundless mercy and for the sake of the holy, innocent, bitter sufferings and death of thy beloved son Jesus Chirst to have mercy upon me, a poor sinful being" TLH p. 16

Do we expect that we will have named each sin - or category of sin - more effectively than a child?

1 Cor. 11:27-29 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. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Perhaps we are taking communion in an unworthy manner and should examine ourselves if we don't recognize that our children are part of the Body of the Lord - the Church and are as capable /more capable than we are of recognizing the presence of Christ in the Bread and Wine as the Body and Blood of Christ.

[saami]

I am LCMS because I feel that ELCA has strayed away from true Lutheranism. If anything ELCA is becoming more Episcopalian than Lutheran. I am just waiting for a total merge with the ECUSA.
I am not saying that the LCMS is perfect, it has it issues, but it is closer to what Martin Luther had in mind. I also disagree with the ELCA views on contemporary issues such as women in ministry, abortion, communion, interpretation of Scriputures. Some of the views, I believe to be unBiblical.

In what way has the ELCA become more Epscopalian than Lutheran?

If it is regarding the notion of bishop - that is actually the historic stance of the European Lutherans since Luther. We have an "historic episcopacy" already since the days when Catholic Bishops (not yet Roman until the Council of Trent) became Lutheran and then installed their successors or neighboring new bishops. American Lutheranism to a great extent forgot, found it inconvenient or rejected this ministry.

We all hold to the Book of Concord as our defining documents, and hold the Bible is inspired and authoritative for faith

[Tetzel]

In what way has the ELCA become more Epscopalian than Lutheran?

If it is regarding the notion of bishop - that is actually the historic stance of the European Lutherans since Luther. We have an "historic episcopacy" already since the days when Catholic Bishops (not yet Roman until the Council of Trent) became Lutheran and then installed their successors or neighboring new bishops. American Lutheranism to a great extent forgot, found it inconvenient or rejected this ministry.

We all hold to the Book of Concord as our defining documents, and hold the Bible is inspired and authoritative for faith

Yes and no. German Bishops stayed with Rome, so German Lutherans (who happened to form the LCMS) didn't really care at all about AS. In the Scandinavian state churchs AS was maintained, but most immigrants who came to America from Scandinavia resisted the State Churches' attempts to come with them, thus also stopping AS. I was in the ELCA until I started going to LCMS services about a year ago. One of the things that disturbed me most about the ELCA was its desire to play the ecumenism game with everyone. The LWF should not be communicating with Rome until Rome clears up the abuses that it justifies in the name of tradition. The ELCA should not be in communion with the PCUSA because they PCUSA has very different views on what the sacrament is. While the ECUSA has a compatible view on the sacrament, it has far too many different strains of doctrine (many of which are at odds with Lutheran beliefs) within it for the call to common mission to be justifiable.

[ByzantineDixie]

German Lutherans (who happened to form the LCMS) didn't really care at all about AS.

This isn't what I got out of reading the BoC (some examples below). I gathered that the Lutherans really wanted bishops and were not at all opposed to AS but the bishops weren't behaving so they went at it without them...not in opposition to AS or ecclesiatical order but solely in opposition to bad bishops.

...Furthermore, we want at this point to declare our willingness to keep the ecclesiastical and canonical polity, provided that the bishops stop raging against our churches. This willingness will be our defense, both before God and among all nations, present and future, against the charge that we have undermined the authority of the bishops. Thus men may read that, despite our protest against the unjust cruelty of the bishops, we could not obtain justice.
[/url] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=19967507#_ftn1)
Consequently, when the regular bishops become enemies of the Gospel and are unwilling to administer ordination,3 (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=19967507#_ftn1) the churches retain the right to ordain for themselves.
[u]3 (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=19967507#_ftn2)German: to ordain suitable persons.


Perhaps I never quite understood this properly.

[Tetzel]

This isn't what I got out of reading the BoC (some examples below). I gathered that the Lutherans really wanted bishops and were not at all opposed to AS but the bishops weren't behaving so they went at it without them...not in opposition to AS or ecclesiatical order but solely in opposition to bad bishops.

...Furthermore, we want at this point to declare our willingness to keep the ecclesiastical and canonical polity, provided that the bishops stop raging against our churches. This willingness will be our defense, both before God and among all nations, present and future, against the charge that we have undermined the authority of the bishops. Thus men may read that, despite our protest against the unjust cruelty of the bishops, we could not obtain justice.

Consequently, when the regular bishops become enemies of the Gospel and are unwilling to administer ordination,3 (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=19967507#_ftn1) the churches retain the right to ordain for themselves.
3 (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=19967507#_ftnref1)German: to ordain suitable persons.


Perhaps I never quite understood this properly.
You cut out the first clause of the sentence, "The German Bishops stayed with Rome" We were willing to have bishops, but did not take the resistance of Bishops as a signal that the movement to reform the Church was illegitimate. In other words we had rejected the idea that AS is necessary for legitimacy

[ByzantineDixie]

OK...here is the whole thing. I still don't see a rejection of AS. Where are you seeing it?

[Article XIV. Ecclesiastical Order]

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&noquote=1&p=19969678#_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 In this issue our consciences are clear and we dare not approve the cruelty of those who persecute this teaching, for we know that our confession is true, godly, and catholic. 4 We know that the church is present among those who rightly teach the Word of God and rightly administer the sacraments. It is not present among those who seek to destroy the Word of God with their edicts, who even butcher anyone who teaches what is right and true, though the canons themselves are gentler with those who violate them. 5 Furthermore, we want at this point to declare our willingness to keep the ecclesiastical and canonical polity, provided that the bishops stop raging against our churches. This willingness will be our defense, both before God and among all nations, present and future, against the charge that we have undermined the authority of the bishops. Thus men may read that, despite our protest against the unjust cruelty of the bishops, we could not obtain justice

[/url]3 (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=19969678#_ftn2)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).

[url="http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=19969678#_ftnref2"]Tappert, T. G. (2000, c1959). The book of concord : The confessions of the evangelical Lutheran church. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

[Tetzel]

Where do you see the retention of AS?

Does it not say that the bishops are hostile, but that they continue anyway. Is that not a rejection of AS, or at the very least a relegation of it to a low status?

[ByzantineDixie]

Where do you see the retention of AS?



Well, what I see is an earnest desire to keep the ecclesiastical structure but a need to abandon it in some places (note: not all) because of the cruelty of the bishops. This to me is a far cry from flat out rejecting AS.

But in all honesty...I don't think your position is uncommon.

[saami]

Yes and no. German Bishops stayed with Rome, so German Lutherans (who happened to form the LCMS) didn't really care at all about AS. In the Scandinavian state churchs AS was maintained, but most immigrants who came to America from Scandinavia resisted the State Churches' attempts to come with them, thus also stopping AS. I was in the ELCA until I started going to LCMS services about a year ago. One of the things that disturbed me most about the ELCA was its desire to play the ecumenism game with everyone. The LWF should not be communicating with Rome until Rome clears up the abuses that it justifies in the name of tradition. The ELCA should not be in communion with the PCUSA because they PCUSA has very different views on what the sacrament is. While the ECUSA has a compatible view on the sacrament, it has far too many different strains of doctrine (many of which are at odds with Lutheran beliefs) within it for the call to common mission to be justifiable.

Not all German Lutherans are Missouri Synod - the Texas and Iowa Synods that joined in making the ALC - were German. LCMS Lutherans were those that left Germany to avoifthe Prussian Union - the making of a state church that was Evangelical and Reformed. Thus to this day LCMS is against mergers or some tyoes of cooperation - its part of their history.

Two types of Scandinavians (churchwise) moved to the US. Those that eventually formed the LCA and ALC were not against the state church blending, such as the Suomi Synod. Others, like the National Evangelical [Finnish] Lutherans were more "home church/Bible study league" types and very lay oriented [my home church, by the way] - and some Norwegians - like the Preuses - and have mostly joined up with the LCMS.

The ELCA is very active in talking to other parts of the Body of Christ and trying to clear up differences. But there is not intention to merge - just stand united against a sinful world. In these discussions we have discovered we have often mis-interpreted other, or found that they have been reforming, too. Did you know that Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, considers the Augsburg Confession a "catholic" document? - in other words expounding true Christianity!

Regarding communion - I have served Lutheran congregations - LCMS as a deaconess and now ELCA as a pastor - and I find few people in the pews who can correctly explain Holy Communion. Do I deny their fellowship at the altar? Impossible to make happen. The communion guests are all limited and human - each in our own way on a journey in Christ. To use your words - too many strains of doctrine - I could not deny them nourishment of the spirit from Christ because they do not understand everything perfectly - none of us could receive Him, then, if that were the pre-requisite.

[LutherNut]

I could not deny them nourishment of the spirit from Christ because they do not understand everything perfectly - none of us could receive Him, then, if that were the pre-requisite.

But the Word of God clearly says that "any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." Is it not the responsibility of the Pastor to withhold the body and blood if he knows that the one receiving is sinning, and eating and drinking judgement upon themself? (Obviously he cannot know what is in everyone's heart, but there are some that he can know, such as members of Reformed church bodies that openly reject the Real Presence, and thus do not discern the body of Christ as our Lord's Word says is necessary for worthy and beneficial reception.) Scripture does set the condition of worthy reception upon the Sacrament of the altar. To allow one to receive the Sacrament when they clearly do not recognize the true body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament is not only irresponsible, but is spiritually injurious to the recipient.


Jay:)

[SPALATIN]

Not all German Lutherans are Missouri Synod - the Texas and Iowa Synods that joined in making the ALC - were German. LCMS Lutherans were those that left Germany to avoifthe Prussian Union - the making of a state church that was Evangelical and Reformed. Thus to this day LCMS is against mergers or some tyoes of cooperation - its part of their history.

Up until 1911 the LCMS had not allowed English speaking congregations. Those that wanted to be in the LCMS but were English speaking were in a separate synod until that year. LCMS history is very suspicious of episcopal or consistorial governing of church. It is one reason they do not have bishops and the congregations have constitutions. The synod acts as merely an advisor to the congregation but does not lay down polity.



Two types of Scandinavians (churchwise) moved to the US. Those that eventually formed the LCA and ALC were not against the state church blending, such as the Suomi Synod. Others, like the National Evangelical [Finnish] Lutherans were more "home church/Bible study league" types and very lay oriented [my home church, by the way] - and some Norwegians - like the Preuses - and have mostly joined up with the LCMS.

The ELCA is very active in talking to other parts of the Body of Christ and trying to clear up differences. But there is not intention to merge - just stand united against a sinful world. In these discussions we have discovered we have often mis-interpreted other, or found that they have been reforming, too. Did you know that Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, considers the Augsburg Confession a "catholic" document? - in other words expounding true Christianity!

Regarding communion - I have served Lutheran congregations - LCMS as a deaconess and now ELCA as a pastor - and I find few people in the pews who can correctly explain Holy Communion. Do I deny their fellowship at the altar? Impossible to make happen. The communion guests are all limited and human - each in our own way on a journey in Christ. To use your words - too many strains of doctrine - I could not deny them nourishment of the spirit from Christ because they do not understand everything perfectly - none of us could receive Him, then, if that were the pre-requisite.

The ELCA however, from my observations is bending to the culture instead of standing against those things it has traditionally seen as sinful. It will only be a matter of time before the Homosexual is allowed to be ordained.

[KEPLER]

But the Word of God clearly says that "any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." Is it not the responsibility of the Pastor to withhold the body and blood if he knows that the one receiving is sinning, and eating and drinking judgement upon themself? (Obviously he cannot know what is in everyone's heart, but there are some that he can know, such as members of Reformed church bodies that openly reject the Real Presence, and thus do not discern the body of Christ as our Lord's Word says is necessary for worthy and beneficial reception.) Scripture does set the condition of worthy reception upon the Sacrament of the altar. To allow one to receive the Sacrament when they clearly do not recognize the true body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament is not only irresponsible, but is spiritually injurious to the recipient.


Jay:)

Jay,

What does Paul mean by body in this sentence that you quote?

[Tetzel]

Not all German Lutherans are Missouri Synod - the Texas and Iowa Synods that joined in making the ALC - were German. LCMS Lutherans were those that left Germany to avoifthe Prussian Union - the making of a state church that was Evangelical and Reformed.


I wasn't saying that all Germans were LCMS. I was saying that no German Lutherans (as far as I know) had been able to maintain AS because the German bishops stayed with Rome. A consequence of this is that the predominantly German LCMS does not have AS. In fact, no Lutheran groups (eventual parts of the ELCA) that came to America brought AS with them.



Two types of Scandinavians (churchwise) moved to the US. Those that eventually formed the LCA and ALC were not against the state church blending, such as the Suomi Synod. Others, like the National Evangelical [Finnish] Lutherans were more "home church/Bible study league" types and very lay oriented [my home church, by the way] - and some Norwegians - like the Preuses - and have mostly joined up with the LCMS.

This is not an issue of Church blending with the Scandinavians. Rather it is a juristictional question. My grandmother was Swedish and the history of Swedish Lutherans that my father basically said that Swedes and Norwegians resisted attempts by the Church of Sweden to establish an American subsidiary, thus no AS for Scandinavian-Americans. No Scandinavian AS in the USA + No German AS in the world= No Lutheran AS in the USA. Unless there was a small Lutheran group with AS in the USA, and that begs the question of why Lutherans would get AS from the Episcopalians if it was possible to get it "in house"


The ELCA is very active in talking to other parts of the Body of Christ and trying to clear up differences. But there is not intention to merge - just stand united against a sinful world. In these discussions we have discovered we have often mis-interpreted other, or found that they have been reforming, too.

The ELCA should be careful. This is dangerous stuff. Rome has wiped out dissention before and could do it again. Even if Rome has made reforms, the details of the reforms mean very little if scripture is not the highest authority and the office of the papacy remains.


Did you know that Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, considers the Augsburg Confession a "catholic" document? - in other words expounding true Christianity!


Yes I've heard such things, but none of this matters unless he declares it as pope. Until then it's just a matter of personal opinion. My question for you is: what would the consequences be for Lutherans who participate in ecumenical dialogue if the Augsburg Confession is officially declared Catholic by Rome?




Regarding communion - I have served Lutheran congregations - LCMS as a deaconess and now ELCA as a pastor - and I find few people in the pews who can correctly explain Holy Communion. Do I deny their fellowship at the altar? Impossible to make happen. The communion guests are all limited and human - each in our own way on a journey in Christ. To use your words - too many strains of doctrine - I could not deny them nourishment of the spirit from Christ because they do not understand everything perfectly - none of us could receive Him, then, if that were the pre-requisite.

As a pastor it is your responsibility to teach the people what the sacrament is. When I was a child in the ELCA I did not understand what it was and thought that it was symbolic. I'm sure I wasn't the only one. Such situations illustrate well that communion for catechized Lutherans only is a good idea.

[SPALATIN]

From the example that Zion mentions it would appear that she sees it as only a vertical relationship of God to his children to supply them the spiritual nourishment they desire, however there is a horizontal relationship that needs to be fed as well. The Sacrament is also a matter of confession. If we do not share the same confession we ought not to commune with each other. If the congregation has a female pastor serving and a visitor doesn't agree with the doctrine of female pastors that visitor should abstain from Holy Communion on that basis.

[BalaamsAss51]

If the congregation has a female pastor serving and a visitor doesn't agree with the doctrine of female pastors that visitor should abstain from Holy Communion on that basis.

If there is a female pastor I wouldn't even set my foot in the door, let alone refrain from attending a false communion.

Pax

[Tetzel]

I'm going to have to differ in opinion here. Although scripture commands that women not be placed in the position of pastor, I do not see why the sacrament would become false or invalid. Such a position reeks of Donatism. That having been said, it is good that the LCMS follows scripture's authority on the issue rather than popular innovations.

[BalaamsAss51]

Hello Tetzel.

Well, of course the Donatists were men, but I take you to mean that we should not take their position that pastoral acts of an unworthy bishop are invalid.

I would not disagree with this, but in the case of female pastors they are not pastors (worthy or unworthy) to begin with.

Further, no emergency situation exists, no one has to step into a vocation that is not theirs.

Also, and this I'm not sure how to explain what I mean, but here goes. At a certain point (and I'm not sure where that is) the changing of meaning about what God's Word tells us leads to a split between the true and false church. It's like those who baptism in the name of the creator, sanctifier, and comforter instead of Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Not exactly kosher. Brings the whole thing into question. How far may you go before you've gone too far and are no longer really Christian?

Pax

[SPALATIN]

Hello Tetzel.

Well, of course the Donatists were men, but I take you to mean that we should not take their position that pastoral acts of an unworthy bishop are invalid.

I would not disagree with this, but in the case of female pastors they are not pastors (worthy or unworthy) to begin with.

Further, no emergency situation exists, no one has to step into a vocation that is not theirs.

Also, and this I'm not sure how to explain what I mean, but here goes. At a certain point (and I'm not sure where that is) the changing of meaning about what God's Word tells us leads to a split between the true and false church. It's like those who baptism in the name of the creator, sanctifier, and comforter instead of Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Not exactly kosher. Brings the whole thing into question. How far may you go before you've gone too far and are no longer really Christian?

Pax

Exactly! If they use those words they had better define that they mean the same to everyone. I think that many of the liberal factions like to use the words that they think define Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

I am also in agreement with you on the women pastor topic.