The same name, two different meanings?

[Confess]

A little while ago I stepped into "no man's land" ;) .

What I did was to go into the ELCA forum and saw a thread that asked if the ELCA should change its name.

I thought that to be an interesting question and so I replied.

I didn't read all the rules to all the forums and did not realize that what I was doing could be considered a debate.

The thing is that I know of one person on that forum that didn't understand what I was saying, so I brought the conversation (not debate) to this forum.

I don't call it a debate because IMO, this person just was not understanding what I was saying, so I attempted to clarify.

So here is my clarification. You will have to use your imagination for this because I came up with it last night. :)

---------------
Imagine the Lutheran doctrines being that of a department store. For this example, we will call the Lutheran doctrine KOHL's DEPARTMENT STORE. :bow: hehe.

Inside KOHL's they sell only certain kinds of merchandise. Now other department stores sell merchandise similar to KOHL's, but they do not sell everything that KOHL's sells.

For this example, all merchandise that KOHL's sells are Lutheran doctrine. If you want specifics, clothing can be the doctrine of salvation, kitchen wares can be the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, bedding supplies can be the doctrine of Sactification etc.

Okay? Does that make sense so far?

Okay.

Now the ELCA is like a MALL.

Now within the MALL they have many stores. The reason why they have so many stores is because they are in fellowship with these stores. Sure, the Mall has department stores that are similar to KOHL's. But they do not sell the same merchandise that KOHL's sells.

What makes this mall even more different then the merchandise that it sells is all the stores that are in fellowship with the MALL. You have stores like Spencer's Gifts (or the Episcp. church), you have the Food Court (or the Reformed church), you have Jewlery stores (or the Moravian church), you also have shoe stores (Presb. church) and gaming stores (UCC).

Oh BTW: Outside the MALL, in the parking lot, there is a tire store that represents the Joint declaration with the Catholics... :)

Now, with all those merchandise / doctrines floating around, not to mention the fact that KOHL's department store and the MALL's department store sell different merchandise / doctrines.

Can we say with a clear conscience that the MALL and KOHL's are the same store / church? :confused:

It appears to me that these are two different beasts with the same name.

[DaRev]

A little while ago I stepped into "no man's land" ;) .

What I did was to go into the ELCA forum and saw a thread that asked if the ELCA should change its name.

I thought that to be an interesting question and so I replied.

I didn't read all the rules to all the forums and did not realize that what I was doing could be considered a debate.

The thing is that I know of one person on that forum that didn't understand what I was saying, so I brought the conversation (not debate) to this forum.

I don't call it a debate because IMO, this person just was not understanding what I was saying, so I attempted to clarify.

So here is my clarification. You will have to use your imagination for this because I came up with it last night. :)

---------------
Imagine the Lutheran doctrines being that of a department store. For this example, we will call the Lutheran doctrine KOHL's DEPARTMENT STORE. :bow: hehe.

Inside KOHL's they sell only certain kinds of merchandise. Now other department stores sell merchandise similar to KOHL's, but they do not sell everything that KOHL's sells.

For this example, all merchandise that KOHL's sells are Lutheran doctrine. If you want specifics, clothing can be the doctrine of salvation, kitchen wares can be the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, bedding supplies can be the doctrine of Sactification etc.

Okay? Does that make sense so far?

Okay.

Now the ELCA is like a MALL.

Now within the MALL they have many stores. The reason why they have so many stores is because they are in fellowship with these stores. Sure, the Mall has department stores that are similar to KOHL's. But they do not sell the same merchandise that KOHL's sells.

What makes this mall even more different then the merchandise that it sells is all the stores that are in fellowship with the MALL. You have stores like Spencer's Gifts (or the Episcp. church), you have the Food Court (or the Reformed church), you have Jewlery stores (or the Moravian church), you also have shoe stores (Presb. church) and gaming stores (UCC).

Oh BTW: Outside the MALL, in the parking lot, there is a tire store that represents the Joint declaration with the Catholics... :)

Now, with all those merchandise / doctrines floating around, not to mention the fact that KOHL's department store and the MALL's department store sell different merchandise / doctrines.

Can we say with a clear conscience that the MALL and KOHL's are the same store / church? :confused:

It appears to me that these are two different beasts with the same name.

What distinguishes Lutheran churches from other church bodies is the Lutheran Confessions. These are the teachings of the Church catholic and the basis of Lutheranism. These doctrines are the result of the Reformation.
While the ELCA does claim a historical lineage to the Lutheran Reformation (and thus why they call themselves "Lutheran"), their rejection of much of the Confessional doctrines has in fact seperated them from Confessional Lutheranism. The LCMS does not recognize the ELCA as "an orthodox Lutheran church body."

It is sad that the path the ELCA has chosen to travel has seperated them from the Church catholic and traditional Lutheransim. We all continue to pray that all of those who have wandered from the truth will be led by the Spirit back to the truth of the Confessional Lutheran church.

1 Timothy 2:4, "(God our Savior) desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

[jcj3803]

The LCMS site has a FAQ on the differences between LCMS and ELCA.

[porterross]

You have stores like Spencer's Gifts (or the Episcp. church

:eek: Oh, dear. Now there's an analogy I would have never considered. :o


Yes, the ELCA is a tad confused about their own identity and are quickly becoming the church of what's happening now.

Does anyone else see it as part of the trend toward religious entertainment in lieu of nourishment? Much like empty calories or rice cakes. :sorry:

[mohawk]

With all respect...if you say the ELCA is not correct...aren't you doing the same as when the Catholics said the same thing about Luther?

I intend to read up on the differences, I was just wondering if you consider them Lutheran or not. I am just seeing that there are different branches of Lutheranism.

[porterross]

Actually, they asked the question in their own sub-forum and Confess merely carried her take on things forward.

They've always been more liberal, but it's as if they no longer wish to adhere to the fundamentals of Lutheran doctrine. That's kind of a biggie for us.

Luther's theses were based on Scripture, as is the Lutheran Doctrine, not the whim of societal permissiveness. There is a huge difference.

[jcj3803]

Actually, they asked the question in their own sub-forum and Confess merely carried her take on things forward.

They've always been more liberal, but it's as if they no longer wish to adhere to the fundamentals of Lutheran doctrine. That's kind of a biggie for us.

Luther's theses were based on Scripture, as is the Lutheran Doctrine, not the whim of societal permissiveness. There is a huge difference.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by "no longer wishing to adhere to Lutheran doctrine"?

(For the record, I like Pepsi, so empty calories good, rice cakes cardboard bad...)

[Confess]

With all respect...if you say the ELCA is not correct...aren't you doing the same as when the Catholics said the same thing about Luther?

I intend to read up on the differences, I was just wondering if you consider them Lutheran or not. I am just seeing that there are different branches of Lutheranism.
I know Baptist churches that teach some Lutheran doctrine. That doesn't make them anymore Lutheran then the ELCA.

You see, IMO, once you take Scripture and begin looking at it with critical eyes (as the ELCA has done) then we are not the same for now all doctrine is man's to judge.

Now I realize that many in the ELCA feel that the confessional Lutheran churches have done the same thing. But I think the burden of proof has to be laid on the shoulders of those who made the changes in doctrine in the last 60 or so years.

The doctrines of the church do not change. God did not make a mistake in allowing false doctrines to float around for thousands of years only to have the liberal churches to have "finally" put a stop to it.

It doesn't make sense.

[AngCath]

You have stores like Spencer's Gifts (or the Episcp. church)

Just had to say that as an Episcopalian I found this HILARIOUS :)

[LutherNut]

The doctrines of the church do not change. God did not make a mistake in allowing false doctrines to float around for thousands of years only to have the liberal churches to have "finally" put a stop to it.

It doesn't make sense.

The big difference is how the ELCA views the Reformation. They insist that the Church must continue to reform, thus their "religion of the times." Luther's idea of reformation was to get the Church back to what it had originally taught, which are the doctrines recorded in Scripture and not newspaper headlines.

[porterross]

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "no longer wishing to adhere to Lutheran doctrine"?

The most obvious one is the tolerance, thus encouragement, of homosexual lifestyles. The ELCA takes no position on whether or not is should conduct same sex unions. Thank God some states, like Texas, have made the decision for them.

The Defense of the Augsburg Confession, like the Bible, is quite clear on marriage being the joining of one man and one woman.



Article XIII. (VII): Of the Number and Use of the Sacraments



14] Matrimony was not first instituted in the New Testament, but in the beginning, immediately on the creation of the human race. It has, moreover, God's command; it has also promises, not indeed properly pertaining to the New Testament, but pertaining rather to the bodily life.





This language quite clearly states doctrinal view of marriage being the union of one man and one woman, Adam and Eve.

However, ELCA policy contradicts and declares its unwillingness to accept or comply with this stated position.



Current Policy of the ELCA
At the 2005 Churchwide Assembly, the Assembly voted to adopt Recommendation Two from the ELCA Church Council regarding blessing of same-sex unions, that the church not adopt a policy, but continue to follow the advice of the Conference of Bishops. The advice states that there is no basis for an official ceremony, and that pastors are trusted to provide pastoral care.
http://www.elca.org/faithfuljourney/policy/ (http://www.elca.org/faithfuljourney/policy/)


How would you justify that policy based on the Lutheran Doctrine and the Scriptures?

How would you justify the ordination of women which is in contradiction with the Scriptures?

Is it acceptable to cherry pick the Bible to conform with current standards and societal views? At what point can you stop lowering the threshold with any authoritative voice?


(For the record, I like Pepsi, so empty calories good, rice cakes cardboard bad...)

Carbonated drinks may briefly quench your thirst and seem harmless enough, but they are pretty bad for you. Ask a nutritionist if you don't believe me, but there is the matter of free will, so knock yourself out. :P

[Studeclunker]

Porteross, this is exactly why I left the ELCA. My beliefs are a tad (shudder) liberal (oh how that word had been corrupted) for the LCMS. Still, they aren't attempting to pull the wool over my eyes with clever lies.

Ephesians 4:14 puts it very well:
KJV:

"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to decieve."

Phillips paraphrase distills this to crystal clarity:

"We are not meant to remain as children at the mercy of every chance wind of teaching and the jockeying of men who are expert in the crafty presentation of lies. "


And the 'crafty presentation of lies' is exactly what's going on in the ELCA! They have left themselves the ability to walk around the larger, more conservative, congregation and use them to support their heritical (yes, I believe the word HERESEY applies here) teachings and practices. It's about time we started exercising a little backbone and denouncing heresy once again. Otherwise if the time is not shortened, all will be decieved.

[Confess]

The big difference is how the ELCA views the Reformation. They insist that the Church must continue to reform, thus their "religion of the times." Luther's idea of reformation was to get the Church back to what it had originally taught, which are the doctrines recorded in Scripture and not newspaper headlines.
Yes, I have heard many in the ELCA say that.

I dunno. That seems like a great way to get out of them answering the question. Suddenly, after some 450 years after the Augsburg Confession and the BoC, suddenly we recognize that the reformation is on going.

"Here I stand" is not an on going type of speech. Luther stood for the doctrines found in the Bible, he dusted off the false teaching to get to the core of what the Bible taught. Things like that just don't change.

[Studeclunker]

"Here I stand" is not an on going type of speech. Luther stood for the doctrines found in the Bible, he dusted off the false teaching to get to the core of what the Bible taught. Things like that just don't change.

Well said!:thumbsup: :amen: :clap:

The big difference is how the ELCA views the Reformation. They insist that the Church must continue to reform, thus their "religion of the times."

As I said, the end of Eph. 4:14
...and the jockeying of men who are expert in the crafty presentation of lies.

[synger]

I've seen the same thing when I was in the Presbyterian church. In the PCUSA, the confessions and catechism are the second of the two-part books that form the governing papers (the Book of Confessions), with the other being all the governing details (The Book of Order, which talks about how the church is organized, who does what, discipline, etc.)

The book of confessions contained the historic Reformed doctrines. They are core to the idea of "believing Presbyterian". But they are not really taught. I was fortunate in that I was part of a very active, very conservative PCUSA church, and one of the adult classes they had was a theology and history class. It was through that class that I learned about the confessional documents. Very few people in the church other than those class-goers and the Confirmation Class Du Jour probably knew much about the confessions.

When the discussions started happening about homosexuality (and previously, women's role in the church), which happen in every denomination, the confessions were trotted out by the more conservative, and explained away as historical and useful but not binding by the more liberal.

I guess I can see it from both sides. "Lutheran" (or "Presbyterian") is as much a historical identification as a doctrinal one. It is in some ways MORE historical, because people on the outside don't know the doctrine but they can identify (vaguely, at least) what a "Lutheran" is.

And most of the items up for discussion are not all that big a deal, doctrinally, to most of the congregants. It may not matter to them what the gender is of the person who preaches, or who they sleep with -- the Spirit of the Lord will use whom He will to spread God's Word. Don't we teach that the Church is universal, and to be found "wherever the Gospel is proclaimed and the sacraments rightly ministered"? In the grand scheme of things, gender and sexual orientation can seem like rather petty things to divide a church over.
Of course, on the other hand, you have the more conservative viewpoint that the church is informed and framed by every bit of its doctrine, and you can't compromise on the "smaller" points without endangering the strength of the bigger ones. I'm of that camp. Therefore we attend an LCMS congregation rather than ELS.

But I do see both sides. And I do think that both sides have the "right" to call themselves Lutheran. The core beliefs, those which set Lutherans apart from other denominations, are the same.

[jcj3803]

This is a very enlightening thread. I was raised WELS and was an LCMS member, but joined a UMC congregation. I've been a regular visitor at an ELCA church the past year as I've been feeling drawn back to the Lutheran Church and have decided I will rejoin a Lutheran congregation.

I am aware of ELCA's stand on homosexuality, which I do not agree with although I am more liberal in believing that the scientific evidence points to a partial biological basis for it (please let's not debate that here - it was just a point of info).

[C.F.W. Walther]

Of course, on the other hand, you have the more conservative viewpoint that the church is informed and framed by every bit of its doctrine, and you can't compromise on the "smaller" points without endangering the strength of the bigger ones. I'm of that camp. Therefore we attend an LCMS congregation rather than ELS.
Why is the ELS any different than the LCMS on what you just stated?

[synger]

Why is the ELS any different than the LCMS on what you just stated?
My apologies. I meant ELCA, not ELS. (still trying to keep all the alphabet soup straight)

Does that clarify the statement a bit more?

[C.F.W. Walther]

yep thanks----I'm thinking of changing over to the ELS from LCMS because of the same problems creaping into the LCMS synod. Trying to be appropriate for the times and the dictatorial stance of the governing body.

That is the whole problem within the Lutheran body. There is too much flux within all the assoc or synods. That's why the attraction of the EO stance because of the consistancy.

[DaRev]

With all respect...if you say the ELCA is not correct...aren't you doing the same as when the Catholics said the same thing about Luther?

I intend to read up on the differences, I was just wondering if you consider them Lutheran or not. I am just seeing that there are different branches of Lutheranism.

There is a big difference.

The Roman Church was accusing Luther of introducing new doctrines. But both Scripture and history show that not to be the case at all. It was the Roman Church who had over the centuries introduced new teachings into the Church. Luther had always stood by the Scriptures as the norm of all Church teachings.

The ELCA, on the other hand, rejects much of what the Scriptures teach on a number of issues. These innovated ideals are not normed by Scripture and are not in line with Luther's vision of the Reformation, that being to return to the apostolic doctrines of the Church catholic.

[DaRev]

Don't we teach that the Church is universal, and to be found "wherever the Gospel is proclaimed and the sacraments rightly ministered"? In the grand scheme of things, gender and sexual orientation can seem like rather petty things to divide a church over.

To clarify your statement above, the Church is found where the Gospel is preached in its purity and the Sacraments administered according to Christ's command.

In order for the Gospel to be recognized, the Law must also be applied when necessary. How, then, can the Gospel be preached in its purity when much of the Law is ignored or written off? How can someone who is suffering in the sin of sodomy hear the Gospel when his or her sin is not recognized or is embraced by the Church? Forgiveness of sins is preceded by repentance. Repentance comes from application of the Law. When the Law is missing, repentance is missing. If one is unrepentant, how can they be forgiven? Answer: They aren't. The Gospel is not preached in its purity in this type of situation.

Christ commands in His words of the Verba, "Do this in remembrance of Me." The key word here is "this." What does "this" refer to? It refers to the eating and drinking of His very Body and Blood given in, with, and under the elements of bread and wine. Part of His command includes the belief in the sacramental union of the body and blood in the bread and wine. St. Paul clarifies this command (by inspiration of the Holy Spirit) and the condition for worthy and right recpetion of the Sacrament in his firts letter to the Corinthians. The Confessions tell us that such requires all hearts to believe, and thus in the Formula of Concord, Lutherans reject all who teach contrary to the sacramental union of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament. In such cases, the Sacrament is not administered according to Christ's command.

[Studeclunker]

And most of the items up for discussion are not all that big a deal, doctrinally, to most of the congregants. It may not matter to them what the gender is of the person who preaches, or who they sleep with -- the Spirit of the Lord will use whom He will to spread God's Word. Don't we teach that the Church is universal, and to be found "wherever the Gospel is proclaimed and the sacraments rightly ministered"? In the grand scheme of things, gender and sexual orientation can seem like rather petty things to divide a church over.


Yes, God does use the unrighteous from time to time. Though this is highly unusual. Much of what's going on with churches like ELCA, the American Episcopal, and the Methodist churches, are indicitive of church leadership that has lost their way. First and Second Corinthians are instructive to these governing bodies. "We battle against powers and principalities". The evil one and his minnions are ever working to overthrow the church.

Now, I can almost hear some of you say, "Oh please. Next thing you're going to say is that some of these leaders are demonically possessed!"
If we are to accept the perspicuity of the Bible, we aren't left with a pick and choose position. Either all of the Bible is true or none of it is. Yes, this is a black and white statement. God is that way. There is no grey in God, he is all white. There is no grey in the evil one, he is all black (don't even start on the racial thing! You know what I mean). The bible is the same way.

"a little leven levens the lot" "put out that evil one from amoung you!" Over and over the Lord exhorts us through the writers of the Bible with the same premise. Gender and sexual orientation are a major thing, not minor. They got two cities utterly destroyed, Remember? God doesn't take these things lightly. We should keep this in mind.
Yes, it has been proven that a chemical imbalance in the brain can cause homosexuality. It has also been proven that this imbalance can be corrected.

It isn't the homosexuality that damns a person as much as the persistance in the behaviour! And a Christian church that supports this and like behaviours is in a very precarious position indeed!

[porterross]

Spot on, Studeclunker. It's as if many have chosen to forget or downplay the lessons from the Scriptures about what happens when we disobey God.



Much of what's going on with churches like ELCA, the American Episcopal, and the Methodist churches, are indicitive of church leadership that has lost their way.


This is pure selfishnesh in my eyes and it's putting one's personal choices and weakness above God. They sin willfully and knowingly, proudly flouting THEIR will over God's command from the alter.

I have wondered how sad this makes God.

What does this teach our children? This is what worries me.

[Confess]

What does this teach our children? This is what worries me.


It should! Here is one testimony of a faithless Lutheran father and the effect it had on the son:



How I Became an Atheist

My father calls himself Lutheran, though his actual beliefs are far from it. He give me more of a Buddhists "oneness" of the universe impression. He thinks all religions are a path to the one whole, and impersonal "Being." He reads a lot of philosophy and makes decisions based on his own experience rather than what's in any holy text. I however, was raised as a Roman Catholic, just like my mother, and attended a mid sized church in Orlando, FL. While my parents were in mass, I went to the Sunday School lessons and learned about the bible. Not deep study, since I was all of about 7, but the basic feel good stories like Noah's Ark and Daniel and the Lions. I went through this for the years up until the First Communion ceremony, and even a little beyond that. Our preacher, Father Hesslen, became one of my great friends, and we often had him over for dinner. All and all it was a very pleasant experience, and while I was not obsessed with Christ and the Bible, I just generally accepted it as true since that was what I had always been taught.

[porterross]

Good article, Confess. His point about no deep study especially struck me. It's something I'm working toward with my daughter because I feel deeply how critical it is for her future.
Whatever her path will take in life, I must know that she has a strong foundation and clear understanding of the Scriptures and why I chose to raise her in the LCMS because of the simple, beautiful adherence to God's Word.
She wants to be a Veterinarian, like her brother's wife and they both have faith, but I also know how that the scientific community will challenge and belittle her faith in Christ. I want her to be solid in her understanding of why they are wrong so she will never be misled.
My parents set me in the right dircetion with this, alhtough not to the extent I needed, and it makes all the difference in our lives when we accept the guidance of the Holy Spirit, doesn't it? I'm so grateful He never gave up on me. :clap:

[jcj3803]

The ELCA, on the other hand, rejects much of what the Scriptures teach on a number of issues. These innovated ideals are not normed by Scripture...

May I pick your brain here, Rev? There's the ordination of women, allowing congregations to decide how to deal with homosexual issues, Biblical criticism, and open communion with some other denominations. Are there other things?

The ELCA church I visit does state that the body and blood are present in the communion elements although I've never heard anybody explicitly use the term consubstantiation.

[LutherNut]

The ELCA church I visit does state that the body and blood are present in the communion elements although I've never heard anybody explicitly use the term consubstantiation.

Well, Lutherans don't hold to "consubstantiation."
But the fact that the ELCA is in full fellowship with church bodies that flat out reject God's word concerning the Real Presence, that puts them not only at odds with the Scriptures (in particular 1 Corinthians 10 & 11), it also puts them at odds with the Lutheran Confessions in which Lutherans "reject those who teach otherwise." (FoC VII)

[Studeclunker]

This is pure selfishnesh in my eyes and it's putting one's personal choices and weakness above God. They sin willfully and knowingly, proudly flouting THEIR will over God's command from the alter.

I have wondered how sad this makes God.

What does this teach our children? This is what worries me.

It doesn't make God sad, make no mistake! It makes him deadly furious! Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the ones that it makes sad, grievously so, with the Holy Spirit. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under Her wings, but you were not willing!" Compare this lament, with the individual that Abraham pled with for the city of Sodom.

The article that Confess posted is what our children think. It makes them into athiests, angry athiests, sometimes. Liberal churches are doing more harm now to the Christian cause than the period of Roman persecution ever did. It reminded me of Kruschev's speech to the U.S. Senate. "You will collapse from within.." he shrieked. That's exactly what the evil one is shrieking to all of us.

[porterross]

We were discussing this very subject tonight as it's becoming obvious that there is an agenda to make homosexuality seem normal and natural. Look at how much of it is on TV.

How can anyone not see a 3rd grade curriculum that includes showing a film on families that includes same-sex couples as parents (Pennsylvania) as brainwashing?

The liberal social agenda influences our public school system and it's frightening. As parents, it puts us in the precarious position of explaining why these presentations are wrong and such unions are anything but natural on both Biblical and biological levels without looking like we are discriminating or being judgemental and self-righteous.

First, homosexuals don't want to be singled out, now they want their lifestyle forced upon all of us in every facet of society and the liberal churches are falling for it. These churches have become politically correct, which is not their purpose.

What's next, a new language Bible that intends to make no one feel like a sinner? :eek:

[Jim47]

porterross

We were discussing this very subject tonight as it's becoming obvious that there is an agenda to make homosexuality seem normal and natural. Look at how much of it is on TV.

How can anyone not see a 3rd grade curriculum that includes showing a film on families that includes same-sex couples as parents (Pennsylvania) as brainwashing?






I didn't know they were doing this to 3rd graders. I hadn't even heard the word sex when I was that age. and never heard of homo sexuals until I was in probably 10th grade. This makes me just sick :sick:

[jcj3803]

We were discussing this very subject tonight as it's becoming obvious that there is an agenda to make homosexuality seem normal and natural. Look at how much of it is on TV.

[...]
First, homosexuals don't want to be singled out, now they want their lifestyle forced upon all of us in every facet of society and the liberal churches are falling for it. These churches have become politically correct, which is not their purpose.

What's next, a new language Bible that intends to make no one feel like a sinner? :eek:

I agree with you 100%. Actually, I believe there is a Bible which has done away with all references to God as "He". God as Father isn't PC either.

Just as another point, ELCA does not have a confession and absolution in the liturgy. We do pray the Lord's Prayer before communion, but that's the only mention of sin.

(Rev, I thought consubstantiation was the presence being "in, under" the elements versus transsubstantiation where the priest converts the elements to actually blood and body. I must be mistaken on the terms.)

[DaSeminarian]

With all respect...if you say the ELCA is not correct...aren't you doing the same as when the Catholics said the same thing about Luther?

I intend to read up on the differences, I was just wondering if you consider them Lutheran or not. I am just seeing that there are different branches of Lutheranism.

Yes and No.

I suppose you could say that those of a Confessional church body are being like the Roman church in our complaint, but there is a small difference. Most of the congregations of the ELCA have left their Lutheran doctrine and practice to embrace the culture rather than standing firms to scripture and being there for the culture to repent and embrace them. There is a remnant of congregations in the ELCA that still have remained true to their confessions, but they are a miniscule number. This is what "higher criticism" has done to the ELCA. They no longer see Scripture as the Norm, but more as a myth.

I don't know that I agree with the analogy that the Opening post put forth. Seems a bit shaky in the way it is constructed.

[Studeclunker]

How can anyone not see a 3rd grade curriculum that includes showing a film on families that includes same-sex couples as parents (Pennsylvania) as brainwashing?


Ah yes, the 'Rainbow Curriculum'. We can thank our senator from New York, Hillary Clinton, and her husband, President Slick Willie, for that.

[RegularGuy]

Just as another point, ELCA does not have a confession and absolution in the liturgy.


This is not true.

[jcj3803]

It's true in the ELCA church I regularly visit. There is the Lord's Prayer but I'm talking about a group verbal confession of sins and pastoral absolution a la an LCMS liturgy.

Perhaps that's something that's left up to the individual congregations to include or not? This church does not use a service book - it's all in the bulletin or the screen for the contemporary service.

[DaRev]

May I pick your brain here, Rev? There's the ordination of women, allowing congregations to decide how to deal with homosexual issues, Biblical criticism, and open communion with some other denominations. Are there other things?

Well, those are big enough issues, particularly Biblical criticism and the baggage that it carries with it, such as the denying of the historicity of the Old Testament. When one toys with one part of Scripture, it effects many other parts. All of Scripture fits together.

The ELCA church I visit does state that the body and blood are present in the communion elements although I've never heard anybody explicitly use the term consubstantiation.

LutherNut is correct that Lutherans reject "consubstantiation." The Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation uses Aristotelian logic in an attmpt to explain something that Scripture is silent on. Consubstantiation, which basically says that there is a mixture of body and bread/blood and wine, is also an attempt to explain.
Lutherans hold to what the Confessions call "Sacramental Union" in that it is Christ who gives us His body and blood in, with, and under the elements of bread and wine. There is no explanation given in Scripture of how this occurs, so we don't attempt to explain it, either. It is what Christ says it is.

[jcj3803]

I went to ELCA again a couple of hours ago and there was no public corporate confession of sins, aside from that contained in the Lord's Prayer, Regular. Maybe that's unique to this particular church.

[RegularGuy]

I went to ELCA again a couple of hours ago and there was no public corporate confession of sins, aside from that contained in the Lord's Prayer, Regular. Maybe that's unique to this particular church.


I'm not a big fan of "contemporary" worship because often it is an excuse for sloppy liturgics.

The ELCA's LBW and With One Voice hymnals both include acts of corporate confession for use before the Communion liturgy. Their use is optional in keeping with Luther's teaching about the Sacrament of the Altar in the Small Catechism. During festive times, the order for confesson may not be appropriate. But, the LBW's rubrics suggest that the Prayers of the Church should include a prayer of confession if the Brief Order for Confession and Forgiveness is not used.

The new ELW hymnal offers two pre-liturgical rites, one is a rite of confession and forgiveness, the other a Remembrance of Baptism, which, I assume, is included for use on festive occasions.

At any rate, the ELCA definitely has rites of corporate confession (private confession, too). I wouldn't be concerned about a congregation that didn't use them at every worship service, but I would definitely want to ask the pastor about a congregation that never used them.

[LutherNut]

I'm not a big fan of "contemporary" worship because often it is an excuse for sloppy liturgics.

The ELCA's LBW and With One Voice hymnals both include acts of corporate confession for use before the Communion liturgy. Their use is optional in keeping with Luther's teaching about the Sacrament of the Altar in the Small Catechism. During festive times, the order for confesson may not be appropriate. But, the LBW's rubrics suggest that the Prayers of the Church should include a prayer of confession if the Brief Order for Confession and Forgiveness is not used.

The new ELW hymnal offers two pre-liturgical rites, one is a rite of confession and forgiveness, the other a Remembrance of Baptism, which, I assume, is included for use on festive occasions.

At any rate, the ELCA definitely has rites of corporate confession (private confession, too). I wouldn't be concerned about a congregation that didn't use them at every worship service, but I would definitely want to ask the pastor about a congregation that never used them.

How anyone can receive the Lord's Supper in a worthy manner without the opportunity to examine himself and confess before God is beyond me. I'm not surprised that the ELCA believes this to be optional. Discerning the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament is optional to them.
The Roman Catholic mass even contains a corporate rite of confession (such as it is). At least they got that part right.

[ricg]

That was my first reaction, too, but upon reflection, it is possible for someone to examine him-/herself without absolution from a pastor. I think Regular is reluctantly admitting it's bad practice not to have confession and absolution before communion to take care of folks who may have let it slip, but I wouldn't put it in the heresy category. After all, there's no record of Christ doing it at the Last Supper.

[jcj3803]

I've noticed the past few years that there seems to be less and less mention of sin and asking forgiveness in *any* church that I've gone to. There seems to be more emphasis on the power of Christ and social "action" like Habitat, volunteering at homeless shelters, etc. The exception was a Catholic Mass that I attended with a friend. The priest actually talked about damnation and Hell.

I'm not sure why the trend exists. But then I grew up with an old German WELS pastor who was all Sturm und Drang all the time, so maybe I'm seeing the norm now.

The other thought I had is that people around here all have "perfect" jobs and "perfect" families and "perfect" lives and they just don't want to hear it. And the churches don't want to risk alienating anybody.

[C.F.W. Walther]

The devil is depicted by movies as a powerfull demonic presence. As someone that comes to earth to wreck havoc and destruction. The RC church and movies also show the devil being evident in physical manifestations such as posessions and fighting evil spirits and vampires with holy water and wooden stakes and crosses.

Shows you how devious the devil is. Do any of us ever see these things personally? Of course not so how can we relate the devil to our everyday life when he is depicted the way the movies and the RC church show him? We can't because he's not real to us in the traditional way we perceive him so we think of him as less than real and that's just the way he wants it. The devil is more insidious than we give him credit.

Since he works on a less visual scale then we think he's not really real sometimes and that those "sins" are not as paramount to us and are just "bad choices" or "mistakes". The secular world doesn't even view sins as sins anymore. Justifying them as choices to be made according to each person beliefs/morals.

[seajoy]

Excellent post Rad.

[RegularGuy]

How anyone can receive the Lord's Supper in a worthy manner without the opportunity to examine himself and confess before God is beyond me.

Question


Who, then, receives such a sacrament in a worthy way?


Answer



Of course, fasting and other physical preparations are excellent disciplines for the body. But anyone who believes these words, “Given for you,” and “Shed for you to forgive sins,” is really worthy and well prepared. But whoever doubts or does not believe these words is not worthy and is unprepared, because the words, “for you” demand a heart that fully believes.


—Luther's Smaller Catechism

[UBERROGO]

You have stores like Spencer's Gifts (or the Episcp. church)


Pretty accurate analogy IMO.

[synger]

The devil is depicted by movies as a powerfull demonic presence. As someone that comes to earth to wreck havoc and destruction. The RC church and movies also show the devil being evident in physical manifestations such as posessions and fighting evil spirits and vampires with holy water and wooden stakes and crosses.

Shows you how devious the devil is. Do any of us ever see these things personally? Of course not so how can we relate the devil to our everyday life when he is depicted the way the movies and the RC church show him? We can't because he's not real to us in the traditional way we perceive him so we think of him as less than real and that's just the way he wants it. The devil is more insidious than we give him credit.

Since he works on a less visual scale then we think he's not really real sometimes and that those "sins" are not as paramount to us and are just "bad choices" or "mistakes". The secular world doesn't even view sins as sins anymore. Justifying them as choices to be made according to each person beliefs/morals.

This came home to me the other day, in a small but worrisome interchange with my daughter. She's "I'll-be-six-in-April" and she goes with me to choir rehearsal on Wednesday nights. She takes a book and coloring, and pretty much amuses herself. Sometimes she sits with us, and sometimes she plays in the back pews of the choir loft. I keep half an eye on her, as do her godparents and the other choir members.

She was getting a little bored near the end of rehearsal, and she was laying under my pew, playing with my legs. Usually I don't mind, but we were rehearsing a piece that I really needed to concentrate on. So I leaned down and waved her off. She headed back behind the pews with her stuffed monkey and was quiet. I didn't think anything of it.

Ten minutes later, she was still very quiet. I looked around for her, but didn't see her. After the next song I called her name. Then we heard this sniffling from behind the altos. I went back to her, and she was crying and upset, and had stayed quiet the whole time in her misery.

I couldn't get her to tell me what was wrong at the time, but we left early and went home and cuddled on the couch for a time. Finally she got it off her chest.

When I'd waved her off, she thought I was angry. She backed off and went off by herself, and let it fester and stew until she was SURE I didn't love her anymore and would never let her come to choir rehearsal with me again. (which she absolutely loves) She had worked herself up to such a state of heart-sickness that she couldn't stop her sporadic crying until we'd been home a good fifteen minutes.

Later during our prayers we talked about it. We talked about that sort of wrong thinking, and how one needs to talk about it. I told her how the devil was the father of lies, and uses times like that to whisper all sorts of lies that just make you think it's so much worse than it is. We talked about Pastor's sermon the week before about Jesus casting out demons. Even in the children's talk, before the main sermon, he taught how we have the authority to say to a demon, "In the name of Jesus, begone!" So it was perfect timing for a talk like this. We also talked about how God is always there for her even if she feels like I'm not. And how she needs to talk about such feelings and not hold them inside where they'll fester and grow in the darkness and lies until they make her sick.

She didn't believe me. She told me matter-of-factly that the devil is red and has horns and a big fork. She didn't "hear" the devil talking to her. I explained a little more, but then let it drop before I got into "lecture mode." (something I'm more than a little prone to do, in her opinion. She's probably right) I ended by focusing instead on God's love, and how she's never, ever alone. That, she can hold tightly to and believe.

But it really made me think. This is what the cartooning of our culture has done. We've belittled the devil so much that he's become a laughable, powerless figure -- or conversely, we've made him and his minions too powerful by making whole movies around them where no one, not even the faithful, can stand against him.

Now, I do admit to having charismatic tendencies, but I don't think demon possession is as pandemic as, say, it's portrayed in books like "This Present Darkness". Still, I know that Satan holds some power in the world, and tries to get us to listen to his lies.

Just not really sure how to teach my daughter about it.

*sighs*

[DaRev]

Question



Who, then, receives such a sacrament in a worthy way?


Answer



Of course, fasting and other physical preparations are excellent disciplines for the body. But anyone who believes these words, “Given for you,” and “Shed for you to forgive sins,” is really worthy and well prepared. But whoever doubts or does not believe these words is not worthy and is unprepared, because the words, “for you” demand a heart that fully believes.


—Luther's Smaller Catechism

Based upon this passage from Luther's Small Catechism, how does the ELCA justify altar fellowship with Reformed Church bodies who "doubts and does not believe these words"? Certainly those hearts do not "fully believe".

[porterross]

But it really made me think. This is what the cartooning of our culture has done. We've belittled the devil so much that he's become a laughable, powerless figure -- or conversely, we've made him and his minions too powerful by making whole movies around them where no one, not even the faithful, can stand against him.

Now, I do admit to having charismatic tendencies, but I don't think demon possession is as pandemic as, say, it's portrayed in books like "This Present Darkness". Still, I know that Satan holds some power in the world, and tries to get us to listen to his lies.

Just not really sure how to teach my daughter about it.

*sighs*


Unfortunately, she will be introduced to the devil as he exists in the hearts of others when she is exposed to meanness at school. We have fought this for years and my now 13 year old knows that mean and ugly behavior is the work of the devil. That is how he takes up residence in people's hearts, subtly and in full view of a world that refuses to call him by name.

We talk about gentleness, kindness and respect for all others. Thankfully, she is much better at this than I am. :sorry: Her little heart is so tender and pure that I have to counsel myself about not getting angry when she tells me of something mean another girl has done that day at school, but we just talk about how such behavior is a symptom of a sick heart that blocks out the Holy Spirit.

Keep talking to your daughter honestly and explaining the truth consistently. She will understand more than you realize. These children we've given to God are amazing. :thumbsup:

[Edial]

The devil is depicted by movies as a powerfull demonic presence. As someone that comes to earth to wreck havoc and destruction. The RC church and movies also show the devil being evident in physical manifestations such as posessions and fighting evil spirits and vampires with holy water and wooden stakes and crosses.

Shows you how devious the devil is. Do any of us ever see these things personally? Of course not so how can we relate the devil to our everyday life when he is depicted the way the movies and the RC church show him? We can't because he's not real to us in the traditional way we perceive him so we think of him as less than real and that's just the way he wants it. The devil is more insidious than we give him credit.

Since he works on a less visual scale then we think he's not really real sometimes and that those "sins" are not as paramount to us and are just "bad choices" or "mistakes". The secular world doesn't even view sins as sins anymore. Justifying them as choices to be made according to each person beliefs/morals.
Good post, radidio.
In my opinion, the traditional depiction of the devil has done more harm to Christianity than good.

It presents the devil either from an angle of supernatural manifestation or a comical caricature.

But the daily devilish acts are hidden in lies, manipulations, imaginations, disturbance of thoughts, encouragement to laziness, negative interpretation of others' behavior, addiction to worldly pleasures.

These are aimed primarily in separating a believer from the fellowship of other believers.

THAT is the goal of devilish tactics.

And once one is separated and is alone, the devil turns into a satan (his other name) and goes for a kill.

A statement "United we stand, divided we fall" has much heavenly wisdom in it.

There is no such thing as a "lone ranger Christian".

We are made Christians to be together. One body that is united in thought, purpose and fellowship through the love of God.

The closer we are the weaker he is.

Thanks,
Ed

[Studeclunker]

Ed and Rad, excellent posts! Well said!:thumbsup: If I might be permitted to add a wee little bit those worthy observations though.
I find it interesting that God, and Christianity (in particular) are depicted as weak, powerless and empty in the media (movies, television, liturature). The Devil and his minnions, however, are depicted as being these fantastic, occultically empowered creatures. Also, that those who are able to defeat him do so without any religious faith or assistance of any kind from the church. Funny, how history and the Bible prove just the opposite.

[RegularGuy]

Based upon this passage from Luther's Small Catechism, how does the ELCA justify altar fellowship with Reformed Church bodies who "doubts and does not believe these words"? Certainly those hearts do not "fully believe".


Based upon that passage from the Small Catechism, which words is it that the Reformed churches do not "fully believe"? Is it "Given" or "Shed" or "to forgive sins" or "for you"?

Yes, the Reformed have a different understanding of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist than we Lutherans. Though I think that the Reformed would affirm and "fully believe" all of those words.

The conversation that led to the full communion agreement between between the ELCA and the Reformed churches concluded that the two views of Christ's presence were "complimentary" rather than "contradictory" and that the historic condemnations were precisely that--historic. The polemics of the 16th century were not writ in stone for eternity.

I'm not interested in debating these issues. I realize that your church body and mine differ on these matters and I'm content to let it rest there. If you are truly interested in the rationale for the ELCA/Reformed agreement, the documents are available at elca.org.

[Edial]

Concerning the Communion topic that some discuss, I would say that the closed communion as well as the open communion, do have some truly uniting points as well as divisive ones on both sides.

I think that the general outlook of a Lutherean should be leaning more towards an open communion train of thought than the opposite.

Closed communion and open communion definitely developed into some extremes in some cases that do not benefit the body of Christ by either separating it or contaminating it.

Thanks,
Ed

[LutherNut]

The conversation that led to the full communion agreement between between the ELCA and the Reformed churches concluded that the two views of Christ's presence were "complimentary" rather than "contradictory" and that the historic condemnations were precisely that--historic. The polemics of the 16th century were not writ in stone for eternity.

But the Scriptures, the inerrant word of God, upon which they are fully based are indeed written for all eternity. But I knw that the ELCA does not believe that, either.

I think my question concerning the ELCA communion with those who reject Jesus' own words concerning His body and blood in the Sacrament would center on the Formula of Concord Article VII, which is drawn directly from the word of God on the matter of the Lord's Supper. Any rejection of the affirmative statements in article VII would represent a rejection of God's own word on the matter. This is what makes the ELCA's fellowship practices truly sad. So many people receiving the Lord's body and blood to their judgement.:sigh:

[Edial]

But the Scriptures, the inerrant word of God, upon which they are fully based are indeed written for all eternity. But I knw that the ELCA does not believe that, either.

I think my question concerning the ELCA communion with those who reject Jesus' own words concerning His body and blood in the Sacrament would center on the Formula of Concord Article VII, which is drawn directly from the word of God on the matter of the Lord's Supper. Any rejection of the affirmative statements in article VII would represent a rejection of God's own word on the matter. This is what makes the ELCA's fellowship practices truly sad. So many people receiving the Lord's body and blood to their judgement.:sigh:
But wouldn't you agree that it is Lord's matter of whom he will judge and not ours?

I already presented in another thread how I, as not a believer yet, partook in a Catholic communion and was afterwards rejected by the Priest (he purposely did not shake my hand when people were coming out of the church).
But the Lord did not condemn me for "taking unworthily", but saved me a year or two later.

I do not agree with ELCA on many counts, but I also do not agree with LCMS and WELS on a closed communion "across the board".

Thanks,
Ed

[Studeclunker]

One doesn't save people by giving them the cold shoulder. Out of nosiness, did you take communion out of ignorance, or were you testing the priest, Ed? Nonetheless, he should have shook your hand and requested to speak with you. If a non-believer takes communion, they take it to thier condemnation. However, the Lord, being forgiving and gracious, forgives our sins. After all, he died for us, didn't he? I have a feeling that the priest will answer for what happened that day.

[LutherNut]

But wouldn't you agree that it is Lord's matter of whom he will judge and not ours?

I agree. And He has set the standard for worthy reception of the Sacrament, not us. It's in His word. The ELCA just plain rejects it... as do the Reformed.

I already presented in another thread how I, as not a believer yet, partook in a Catholic communion and was afterwards rejected by the Priest (he purposely did not shake my hand when people were coming out of the church).
But the Lord did not condemn me for "taking unworthily", but saved me a year or two later.

And you should be praising God for His grace toward you! As St. Paul once said, "Should we go on sinning so that grace may abound? By no means!"
Just because you were saved by His grace doesn't mean that we can just ignore His word on these matters. He will be merciful to whom He will be merciful.

I do not agree with ELCA on many counts, but I also do not agree with LCMS and WELS on a closed communion "across the board".

But it's Biblical, Ed. So you don't agree with God on the issue, either?

I really don't want to get into a wizzwar on this subject again. It's been beaten to death already... and God won.

[filosofer]

Closed communion and open communion definitely developed into some extremes in some cases that do not benefit the body of Christ by either separating it or contaminating it.

Thanks,
Ed

Just to be clear. No church that I am aware of practices true "open communion". The instant a church states that someone must believe or be baptized, it is no longer "open".

So the scale ranges from "relatively open" to closed. ;)

:wave:



In Christ's love,
filo

[LutherNut]

I have a feeling that the priest will answer for what happened that day.

Yes. He will have to answer as to why he communed someone that he wasn't sure was able to receive worthily. That is, afterall, his job as steward of the mysteries.

[LutherNut]

Just to be clear. No church that I am aware of practices true "open communion". The instant a church states that someone must believe or be baptized, it is no longer "open".



Three letters: U C C

[jcj3803]

This is probably a whole 'nother thread, but I read a lot of "it's in the Scriptures" and they are inerrant.

So - and this is not a troll - how does one reconcile the fact that Luther himself wanted to exclude the book of James but it's "in the Scriptures", i.e. included in the Canon?

Truly, I am curious how one reconciles that with Biblical inerrancy.

[DaRev]

I think that the general outlook of a Lutherean should be leaning more towards an open communion train of thought than the opposite.

In reality, the general outlook of Lutherans should be to adhere to the catholic faith, the Scriptures, and the doctrines of such as is found in the Confessions. This would lean more towards the Biblical and Confessional practice of close communion than the opposite.

[DaRev]

This is probably a whole 'nother thread, but I read a lot of "it's in the Scriptures" and they are inerrant.

So - and this is not a troll - how does one reconcile the fact that Luther himself wanted to exclude the book of James but it's "in the Scriptures", i.e. included in the Canon?

Truly, I am curious how one reconciles that with Biblical inerrancy.

Was Luther inerrant? I think not.
Besides there have been many in the history of the Church who questioned the canonicity of the antilogoumena. But, once again, the Holy Spirit has His way and they are in the canon.

[filosofer]

And Luther went through the process that the early church had in struggling with what is Scripture (re: NT). He also recognized that the Scriptures were not the personal possession of an individual nor a collection to pick and choose. Also, Luther's later comments about James were toned down considerably.

In Christ's love,
filo

[filosofer]

Three letters: U C C

Despite the wider sense of "open", even the UCC has some limits.

In Christ's love,
filo

[Edial]

One doesn't save people by giving them the cold shoulder. Out of nosiness, did you take communion out of ignorance, or were you testing the priest, Ed? Nonetheless, he should have shook your hand and requested to speak with you. If a non-believer takes communion, they take it to thier condemnation. However, the Lord, being forgiving and gracious, forgives our sins. After all, he died for us, didn't he? I have a feeling that the priest will answer for what happened that day.
Well, this is what happened.

Before I was a believer I lived a life of a practical atheist. I was not a "bad" guy, just lived according to what I knew.

At a place I worked a co-worker's family member died.
So, we went to a Catholic church where that person was laid out.

They began distributing Communion.
I was not a believer, yet heard of Jesus Christ primarily through the rock opera "Jesus Christ Superstar".
I liked the guy.
I knew he is important and has to do with Christianity, but did not believe he was God.

So, I stood on line for the altar.

When my turn came the priest asked me to repeat something. I did not understand what he said, so I kept quiet.
He asked me again.
I only understood some religious words, but did not understand what he asked, so I kept quiet.

I would have told him anything he wanted to hear, but did not know what to say. :)

The line was pressing, so he communed me.
But I sensed that there was an uncomfortable moment there.
OK. So the service ended and people began lining up to shake the priest's hand on the way out.

When my turn came I stretched out my hand, but he just turn somehow away.
I was stunned.

About a year or two later God saved me.

My point of this story is that the priest rejected me, since I was communing "unworthily", but God did not reject me, nor did he punish me, but saved me. :)

It is His Son and it is He who knows the "worthiness" of a person.

So, I would say that the Pastor should proclaim concerning the Communion prior to the Communion, but if a person just approaches, he should not refuse him.

Let God judge him. It is His Son after all.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

...
And you should be praising God for His grace toward you! As St. Paul once said, "Should we go on sinning so that grace may abound? By no means!"
Just because you were saved by His grace doesn't mean that we can just ignore His word on these matters. He will be merciful to whom He will be merciful.
Absolutely. :)
But we also should learn from observing that pattern of God's grace towards the ones that commune.

I think the ones that partake with an unrepentant attitude of the heart and the ones that are doing that without all due respect are looking for trouble.


...
But it's Biblical, Ed. So you don't agree with God on the issue, either?
What I do not understand is this.
Let's forget us, the ELCA for a moment.
I simply do not understand why the conservative branches of the Lutheranism do not partake together.

This I do not understand.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

Just to be clear. No church that I am aware of practices true "open communion". The instant a church states that someone must believe or be baptized, it is no longer "open".

So the scale ranges from "relatively open" to closed. ;)

:wave:



In Christ's love,
filo

OK. :)

[jcj3803]

"Was Luther inerrant? I think not."

Isn't that what the pope said? How can one defend the Lutheran faith to a Catholic then?

What if the Catholic Canon was guided by the Holy Spirit?

(As you've surmised, I have some devout Catholic friends and we occasionally debate things like this.)

[ricg]

This is probably a whole 'nother thread, but I read a lot of "it's in the Scriptures" and they are inerrant.

So - and this is not a troll - how does one reconcile the fact that Luther himself wanted to exclude the book of James but it's "in the Scriptures", i.e. included in the Canon?

Truly, I am curious how one reconciles that with Biblical inerrancy.
The term "inerrancy" is qualitative and says nothing about the extent (quantitative) of the canon. We say Scripture is inerrant because it is God's Word, and He does not err or lie. Determining which books (or parts thereof) are God's Word is a separate issue, about which the Church has had historical debate.

[ricg]

"Was Luther inerrant? I think not."

Isn't that what the pope said? How can one defend the Lutheran faith to a Catholic then?

What if the Catholic Canon was guided by the Holy Spirit?

(As you've surmised, I have some devout Catholic friends and we occasionally debate things like this.)
As for debating RCCs, I'd simply point out that the Lutheran Confessions simply do not define the extent of the canon, and that even the Papacy lived without a defined canon until the Council of Trent. You might also point out that the vote on the extent of the canon at Trent was far from unanimous, which shows there was no agreement even among them until the canon was "declared" by plurality vote. Then state we Lutherans determine the canonical status of a book in the same way the Church has done so from the beginning, by giving actual reasons for its inclusion rather than by committee vote. At that point it should be clear that the burden is theirs to show that their committee, or the pope that ratified its decision, could not have erred, which is what the debate really ought to be about. Of course they will say that one or other or both were infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit, but saying it and proving it, particularly when other decisions by the council seem to so obviously depart from Scripture, are two different things.

I've had a couple of those debates, too.

[Studeclunker]

I've heard the question about the book of James before. Upon quick examination, the book seems to fly in the face of anything that the Apostle Paul wrote. One has to take into account what the writer was addressing, to understand the underlying meaning of the book as a whole. The Apostle James was addressing Antinomianism. Paul also addressed the same issue in First Corinthians with the brief passage that we are all familliar with, "Should we sin all the more that Grace may abound? Certainly not!" James is not aspousing a 'works rightiousness' doctrine. He's addressing the same thing as Paul did. James was just expanding the statement and dealing with phony Christians in the first century. We still have the same kind of people sitting in our pews today. The trouble that Luther feared with the book of James did manifest itself in Lutheran Pietisim. It's source; Phillipp Melanchthon (Schwarzerd), one of Luther's closest associates.

There is a really good Danish movie (well sub-titled) about a villiage of these Pietists and the effect of their taking in a refugee from the excesses of the French Revolution. The lady turned out to be a famous restraunteur and won a lottery. The results of what she did with her winnings is funny and touching at the same time. I wish I could remember the name of the movie! (pounds head with fists):sorry: Perhaps someone else has seen it and can post the name? It's really worth seeing.

[LutherNut]

What if the Catholic Canon was guided by the Holy Spirit?


Much of what is found in the apochrypha runs contradictory to the Scriptures. The Holy Spirit would not contradict Himself, ergo...

[KagomeShuko]

Just as another point, ELCA does not have a confession and absolution in the liturgy. We do pray the Lord's Prayer before communion, but that's the only mention of sin.


You know, I really do not appreciate somebody making a general statement about the ELCA when they have not visited every single ELCA congregation and every single type of servive that those congregations hold in order to truly give an accurate perception of the ELCA practices. This statement is not accurate.

Every Sunday, and I mean EVERY Sunday, we have confession and absolution in the liturgy!!!!

I get it mixed up when I try to do it myself, but we recite,

"Most merciful God,
Have mercy on us,for we have sinned in thought, word, and deed, by what we have done and by what we have left undone. We have not loved You with our whole hearts. We have not loved our neighbors as ourselves. In deed and in truth, we confess our sins, so God who is merciful and just may. . ."

And THE PASTOR replies something like,

"As a called and ordained minister of Christ, I declare that your sins are forgiven. . ."

Unless you have visited every single ELCA congregation in the country and visited every ELCA gathering, you have no right to say what is not done and what is done. . .

I have only been to ONE church that I would say did not really have it. . . and that was because unfortunately I was in their contemporary worship service. . .they did have traditional worship, too!

[KagomeShuko]

Question


Who, then, receives such a sacrament in a worthy way?


Answer



Of course, fasting and other physical preparations are excellent disciplines for the body. But anyone who believes these words, “Given for you,” and “Shed for you to forgive sins,” is really worthy and well prepared. But whoever doubts or does not believe these words is not worthy and is unprepared, because the words, “for you” demand a heart that fully believes.


—Luther's Smaller Catechism
Thank you! Oh, yay for confirmation and Luther's small catachism!

[KagomeShuko]

Based upon this passage from Luther's Small Catechism, how does the ELCA justify altar fellowship with Reformed Church bodies who "doubts and does not believe these words"? Certainly those hearts do not "fully believe".
They do not believe that it is for the forgiveness of sin? Those are the words of which they are speaking - not the "real presence."

[KagomeShuko]

But wouldn't you agree that it is Lord's matter of whom he will judge and not ours?

According the the LCMS and WELS, the scripture about not eating an drinking in an unworthy manner to condemn oneself - they are allowed to judge (I don't agree one bit - they don't see this as not judging. . .umm. . .huh?) and don't let God judge these people - they judge them instead. . .though they say that they are helping them by not letting them participate in communion because they think they will be eating and drinking to their own condemnation (which, again, how do THEY truly know???

[seajoy]

According the the LCMS and WELS, the scripture about not eating an drinking in an unworthy manner to condemn oneself - they are allowed to judge (I don't agree one bit - they don't see this as not judging. . .umm. . .huh?) and don't let God judge these people - they judge them instead. . .though they say that they are helping them by not letting them participate in communion because they think they will be eating and drinking to their own condemnation (which, again, how do THEY truly know???
It is by what the governing bodies of different denominations say, that is the reason. If you belong to a denom that teaches what is contrary to God's Word, then you must assume that's what the person believes. Who would belong to a church that they don't, for the most part, agree with?

There are several denoms that the ELCA opens up communion with. Take a look at what comes from the top in these denoms.

It is out of love that the WELS etc...does this. It may not be perceived that way, but that's the reason.

[PretzelMonger]

If you're looking for a religion to attack, go attack pastafarianism.

[seajoy]

If you're looking for a religion to attack, go attack pastafarianism.
Was that for me?

[jcj3803]

I have only been to ONE church that I would say did not really have it. . . and that was because unfortunately I was in their contemporary worship service. . .they did have tradition worship, too!

And I do not appreciate being called a liar. Would you have the guts to call me that to my face or do you prefer to hide behind the Internet?

I have regularly attended an ELCA church for 2 years, at all forms of services there - contemporary, traditional and blended - and NOT ONCE has there been a formal corporate confession of sins and pastoral absolution.

PM me and I'll give you the name and address and you may attend and see for yourself.

[DaRev]

They do not believe that it is for the forgiveness of sin? Those are the words of which they are speaking - not the "real presence."

But what is it that is "given and shed" for them for the forgiveness of sins? Bread and grape juice? That's what they teach. They are in direct contradiction to the word of God.

According the the LCMS and WELS, the scripture about not eating an drinking in an unworthy manner to condemn oneself - they are allowed to judge (I don't agree one bit - they don't see this as not judging. . .umm. . .huh?) and don't let God judge these people - they judge them instead. . .though they say that they are helping them by not letting them participate in communion because they think they will be eating and drinking to their own condemnation (which, again, how do THEY truly know???

It is the pastor's duty, as a called and ordained servant of Christ, acting in the stead and by the command of Christ Himself, as steward of the mysteries, to administer the Sacrament according the command of Christ. When God's word says that those who receive in an unworthy manner and/or do not discern the body of Christ in the Sacrament do so to their spiritual harm, it is the pastor's duty and responsibility to make sure when he can that those who receive do so to their benefit and not to their judgement. This is a loving and caring act of Christ through those whom He has called and ordained into His office. To haphazzardly administer the Sacrament to those who would be sinning is simply irresponsible. What kind of pastor would knowingly allow someone to eat and drink to their judgement and commit a sin in doing so? Not one that I would want in my church, and I would hope not one that you would want in yours.

If he is so uncaring and unloving as not to care who is communing to their spiritual detriment, in what other areas is he so unloving and uncaring?

[Edial]

...


It is the pastor's duty, as a called and ordained servant of Christ, acting in the stead and by the command of Christ Himself, as steward of the mysteries, to administer the Sacrament according the command of Christ. When God's word says that those who receive in an unworthy manner and/or do not discern the body of Christ in the Sacrament do so to their spiritual harm, it is the pastor's duty and responsibility to make sure when he can that those who receive do so to their benefit and not to their judgement. This is a loving and caring act of Christ through those whom He has called and ordained into His office. To haphazzardly administer the Sacrament to those who would be sinning is simply irresponsible. What kind of pastor would knowingly allow someone to eat and drink to their judgement and commit a sin in doing so? Not one that I would want in my church, and I would hope not one that you would want in yours.

If he is so uncaring and unloving as not to care who is communing to their spiritual detriment, in what other areas is he so unloving and uncaring?
I have some questions.

Wouldn't you agree that there also are many Pastors that practice closed communion not necessarily out of love, but traditional requirements?

Also, how do you explain that the LCMS and WELS do not commune although both believe what the communion stands for?

And, would you personally commune a person who is a Lutheran that believes the communion similar to the Lutheran beliefs, but is not a member of LCMS yet still wishes to commune?

Thanks,
Ed

[PretzelMonger]

Was that for me?
For any of these [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]s. (excuse the word, but it fits!) It was a Yiddish term...I had no idea about the etymology. *blush*

[seajoy]

For any of these [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]s. (excuse the word, but it fits!) It was a Yiddish term...I had no idea about the etymology. *blush*
I think I'm too old/dense to figure out what you are talking about :scratch: , sorry. :)

[RegularGuy]

There is a really good Danish movie (well sub-titled) about a villiage of these Pietists and the effect of their taking in a refugee from the excesses of the French Revolution. The lady turned out to be a famous restraunteur and won a lottery. The results of what she did with her winnings is funny and touching at the same time. I wish I could remember the name of the movie! (pounds head with fists):sorry: Perhaps someone else has seen it and can post the name? It's really worth seeing.



Babette's Feast.

Brilliant flick.

See here: http://imdb.com/title/tt0092603/

[PretzelMonger]

I have seen it. It is good.

[synger]

There is a really good Danish movie (well sub-titled) about a villiage of these Pietists and the effect of their taking in a refugee from the excesses of the French Revolution. The lady turned out to be a famous restraunteur and won a lottery. The results of what she did with her winnings is funny and touching at the same time. I wish I could remember the name of the movie! (pounds head with fists):sorry: Perhaps someone else has seen it and can post the name? It's really worth seeing.


Babette's Feast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babette%27s_Feast).


(I googled "danish movie, french revolution refugee, cook")

[Studeclunker]

Yes, Babbett's Feast. Excellent movie. It'll never win an Academy Award. Those people would never understand it. Still it's brilliant, inspiring, and simple.

Ed, if you ever figure that one out let me know. There really is no reason LCMS, WELS, et all cannot commune together. We all practice and believe the same thing. In fact, I think that Luther himself would be very disapproving of this. He did attend the conferrence at Marbury (without much hope, true). Still, we are all Lutherans. We all believe the same thing about the sacraments. It's just silly parocialism. And no, Reverand, I don't buy the 'pastoral care' argument either.

As for ELCA and whether or not there is confession or self examination. Many ELCA congregations do whatever seems right to them. I must admit with a little embarrasment, that there are a lot of LCMS churches that have fallen into the 'community church' trap as well. There is one in Perris CA that I had to go out to the sign out front to verify the denomination. We sat through a service that was just about as non-Lutheran as possible. I attended for a few weeks and refused communion (I was ELCA at the time), because I wasn't sure what, if anything(cut up wonder bread at the table), they believed. They sure had the praise service down pat. The kids had lots of fun there. It was... truely an interesting experiance.

[KagomeShuko]

I have regularly attended an ELCA church for 2 years, at all forms of services there - contemporary, traditional and blended - and NOT ONCE has there been a formal corporate confession of sins and pastoral absolution.

PM me and I'll give you the name and address and you may attend and see for yourself.


If you had said that out loud to me, I'd have no problem telling you that your statement was not accurate because you generalized that the whole ELCA does not have any confession and absolution.and insisted it was true. It is not true.

I have been Lutheran all my life - even though I did search during my life, i always attended the Lutheran church. I have attended quite a few different ones while on interviews and because of being an evacuee from a hurricane.

That means that I have been attending Lutheran churches - LCA to ELCA - for almost 25 years. That is much longer than 2 years. It is obvious who has more experience with many ELCA congregations.

If in a traditional worship, you are using the LBW, you should be stating absolution and confession every single time. It is also in the maroon hymnal supplement and With One Voice.

[Jim47]

This thread is closed for review.

Just a reminder to watch your responces to others. Telling someone that they have lied or calling them a liar is a flame and against forum rule 2.1, as is setting off the profanity filter.

This goes for all members whether you are a moderator or not.

Please clean up your posts or you will be warned.

[Jim47]

I have restored this thread so that discussion can be continued, but please be careful to avoid flaming.