Your opinion please [Archive]

Revelation1316

23rd February 2007, 10:39 PM

DaSeminarian

23rd February 2007, 11:25 PM

Dear the Lutheran forum,

I would like to get your opinions on Universalism if I could.

Universalists believe that Hell is not eternal, and that even those who reject Christ (like Satan) will one day after eons and eons in Hell, be admitted entrance into Heaven.

Universalists say that various theologians, including prominently Clement of Alexandria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Alexandria) and Origen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen) in the 3rd century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_century) and Gregory of Nyssa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_of_Nyssa) in the 4th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_century), have expressed universalist positions throughout the history of Christianity.

I want to know how you view it please.

God Bless,
Rev

I think that just like Jehovah's witnesses who take scripture out of context, so too can the church father's be taken out of context. Gregory of Nyssa, brother to Basil the Great of Caesarea and friend of Gregory Nazianzus, was into the more mystical aspects of the faith, but I do not believe that he was a total universalist. If he were, he would have been branded a heretic.

If you want more information you can search

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_of_Nyssa

Read the part under Infinity and Epektasis. They do have Universalist tones, but they do not fit the description of Universalism that you have above.

DaRev

24th February 2007, 01:36 AM

Edial

24th February 2007, 01:45 AM

Dear the Lutheran forum,

I would like to get your opinions on Universalism if I could.

Universalists believe that Hell is not eternal, and that even those who reject Christ (like Satan) will one day after eons and eons in Hell, be admitted entrance into Heaven.

Universalists say that various theologians, including prominently Clement of Alexandria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Alexandria) and Origen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen) in the 3rd century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_century) and Gregory of Nyssa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_of_Nyssa) in the 4th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_century), have expressed universalist positions throughout the history of Christianity.

I want to know how you view it please.

God Bless,
Rev
The best argument the Universalists could really make for their cause is if they look at eternity outside of limitations of time.

If they state that eternity is a state of being then time no longer is in the formula.

And time will end the way it started.

In other words, they might say that God could change the STATE of eternity after time ends, or remove them (people in the Burning Lake) from that state.

However, there is no Scriptures to explore such a possibility.

Universalism reaches beyond the Scriptures into areas that we (humans) do not understand.

If they would say that Universalism could be possible, they would have some philosophical arguments.

But since they say that Universalism is a fact, they have no audience that respects Scriptures, since the Bible is not revealing that what they say.

Thanks,
Ed

filosofer

24th February 2007, 01:54 AM

Matthew 25:46 is as clear as it gets:

And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

In Christ's love,
filo

Jim47

24th February 2007, 05:23 AM

The biggest error by universalists is that they reject Jesus as their salvation. Its basically a works based theory of saving ones self, which we know from scripture doesn't work, for only those in Christ can be saved.

LilLamb219

24th February 2007, 12:19 PM

Universalists believe that Hell is not eternal, and that even those who reject Christ (like Satan) will one day after eons and eons in Hell, be admitted entrance into Heaven.

That's not salvation by grace through faith then...and it's not Lutheran.

DaRev

24th February 2007, 02:09 PM

That's not salvation by grace through faith then...and it's not Lutheran.

Thus... not Christian.

JoeCatch

24th February 2007, 04:11 PM

KagomeShuko

24th February 2007, 06:42 PM

Joe, while it does have that, they are not stating that they think everybody in the world will be saved. Don't you think it is a bit arrogant for any person to claim they know everything about God? We don't reject that the Bible says that Jesus is the only way to God - so we want to spread the Gospel. Ultimately, though, we don't know how God works. We are not just going along with an "I'm okay, you're okay" attitude.

Edial

24th February 2007, 07:12 PM

With MOD hat off, ... just a general reminder that discussions concerning lack of salvation of certain groups that call themselved Christian is against the CF Rules.

Thanks,
Ed

KagomeShuko

24th February 2007, 08:19 PM

We're not talking about lack of salvation for Christians - not that I know. . .

DaRev

24th February 2007, 09:23 PM

With MOD hat off, ... just a general reminder that discussions concerning lack of salvation of certain groups that call themselved Christian is against the CF Rules.

Thanks,
Ed

But Universalism is not Christian. Do we not have the right to defend our faith... in our own forum?? Are we going down this road here again??

JoeCatch

24th February 2007, 09:26 PM

Bridget,

Right, the ELCA's view on the matter certainly amounts to more than an "I'm OK, you're OK" attitude; like the FAQ says, we do confess that there is no salvation outside of Christ and His crucifixion and resurrection. We know that Christ's death was a sufficient sacrifice to cover the sins of all humanity, and that God wills that all should be saved; we also know that it's through faith that the gifts of salvation are imparted to us, and that not everybody has faith. If we ultimately conclude that we just can't know for sure about how that apparent paradox cashes out for nonbelievers, then it's still urgently incumbent upon up (the church) to spread the Gospel.

That's different from the sort of universalism others have described in this thread ("all paths are valid"-style, "works-righteousness"-style or "limited-time-only punishment"-style universalism). The ELCA position, as explained in the FAQ, rejects all of those; our official view, rather, is simply that we can't resolve the apparent paradox (exclusivity of claims about Christ and salvation vs. inclusivity of the scope of Christ's sacrifice and God's will) but Christ and His cricifixion remain central to however that cashes out. For what it's worth, I think we're right to reject all of those other versions of universalism as "based on a defective understanding of the New Testament."

LilLamb219

24th February 2007, 10:06 PM

But Universalism is not Christian. Do we not have the right to defend our faith... in our own forum?? Are we going down this road here again??

There is a designated forum for special topics like Universalism but since the OP asked what Lutherans believe in regards to this (and we do not believe in it), I think it should be ok to discuss here, but someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

Edial

24th February 2007, 10:43 PM

But Universalism is not Christian. Do we not have the right to defend our faith... in our own forum?? Are we going down this road here again??
There is nothing to defend, since no Universalist came here to challenge.

If they would come and say that we should believe this and that, then they'll be directed to the forum that accommodates their views.

Or, if the Lutherans here do not object, the Universalists will be addressed right here, since this particular forum does allow more engagement than the other congregational forums.
And this forum is more than equipped to handle such a task.

But if we propose that all the Universalists are not saved, we should perhabs abstain from it, since they do believe in Christ as the Savior.

There is no problem, just a general reminder of the rules.

Thanks,
Ed

DaRev

25th February 2007, 01:27 AM

But if we propose that all the Universalists are not saved, we should perhabs abstain from it, since they do believe in Christ as the Savior.

Universalists do not believe in the exclusivity of faith in Jesus Christ to be saved since they hold that even unbelievers are saved, which we know from Scripture is untrue.

Jim47

25th February 2007, 01:32 AM

There is nothing to defend, since no Universalist came here to challenge.

If they would come and say that we should believe this and that, then they'll be directed to the forum that accommodates their views.

Or, if the Lutherans here do not object, the Universalists will be addressed right here, since this particular forum does allow more engagement than the other congregational forums.
And this forum is more than equipped to handle such a task.

But if we propose that all the Universalists are not saved, we should perhabs abstain from it, since they do believe in Christ as the Savior.

There is no problem, just a general reminder of the rules.

Thanks,
Ed

I agree with everything you said here Ed, except that Universalists accpet Jesus as their Savior, for they do not. They believe that all faiths whether they be Christian or not, or even no faith in a devine being will result in salvation. If you do a search or even use the link below you will see that they made up their own belief system. It is not Christian altough they have modeled part of it after Christian traditions.

From wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism

Unitarian Universalism (UUism) is a theologically liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_religion) religious movement characterized by its support of a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning." This principle permits Unitarian Universalists a wide range of beliefs and practices. Unitarian Universalist congregations and fellowships tend to retain some Christian traditions such as Sunday worship that includes a sermon and singing of hymns, but do not necessarily identify themselves as Christians.

LilLamb219

25th February 2007, 01:58 PM

There are a couple different kinds of universalists...the unitarians being one sort. There are some who say that Christ died for ALL...but that not all need faith to reap the benefits (yeah, I know, they're overlooking what the bible says).

But anyway, their beliefs are far from what Lutherans believe.

DaSeminarian

25th February 2007, 05:24 PM

For what it's worth, the ELCA does not go so far as to reject universalism. I can't link to it from this post, but the FAQ "Who will be saved?" from the ELCA Web site offers a clear and concise summary of the ELCA's official position on the matter; of course opinions among ELCA Lutherans vary widely. Officially, though, "[w]e must say with Braaten, 'We do not ... know the answer. (That) is stored up in the mystery of God’s own future. All (God) has let us know in advance is that he will judge the world according to the measure of his grace and love made known in Jesus Christ, which is ultimately greater than the fierceness of his wrath or the hideousness of our sin.'" The entire (short) piece is worthwhile reading for an alternative Lutheran take on the question; I commend any who are interested to check out the 'Resources' section of the ELCA Web site and have a look at it.

And then people wonder why many from the LCMS have a problem with the ELCA. There are some real stark differences between the two. The ELCA will cite their Lutheran Heritage, but in many matters of doctrine and practice they are more American Evangelical the the LCMS and more Roman Catholic in their Ecumenical ideals.

I often wonder why they bother looking at the "Lutheran Heritage" at all because they certainly don't espouse the doctrines of Dr. Luther.

Edial

25th February 2007, 08:13 PM

I agree with everything you said here Ed, except that Universalists accpet Jesus as their Savior, for they do not. They believe that all faiths whether they be Christian or not, or even no faith in a devine being will result in salvation. If you do a search or even use the link below you will see that they made up their own belief system. It is not Christian altough they have modeled part of it after Christian traditions.

From wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism

Unitarian Universalism (UUism) is a theologically liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_religion) religious movement characterized by its support of a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning." This principle permits Unitarian Universalists a wide range of beliefs and practices. Unitarian Universalist congregations and fellowships tend to retain some Christian traditions such as Sunday worship that includes a sermon and singing of hymns, but do not necessarily identify themselves as Christians.
You are absolutely correct, Jim. :)

Unitarian Universalists are not Christians.
Quote from that same source ...

Many Unitarian Universalists consider themselves humanists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism), while others hold to Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian), Buddhist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist), Jewish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew), natural theist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism), atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist), agnostic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic), pantheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheist), or other beliefs ...

Holding to humanistic beliefs while also holding on to other religious beliefs is more mike FreeMasons that also call themselves "Christians" at their various lodges yet have Koran, or Torah, or the Bible at these lodges.

I do stand corrected. :)

Thanks, :)
Ed

Edial

25th February 2007, 08:39 PM

Universalists do not believe in the exclusivity of faith in Jesus Christ to be saved since they hold that even unbelievers are saved, which we know from Scripture is untrue.
If you are talking about the Universalists other than the Unitarians, then the Roman Catholics also do not believe in the exclusivity in faith in Jesus Christ, since they believe that Islam has it's own way to God.

I would say that the non-Unitarian Universalists do not have Lutheran views in the context of salvation.

Thanks,
Ed

Edial

25th February 2007, 08:48 PM

And then people wonder why many from the LCMS have a problem with the ELCA. There are some real stark differences between the two. The ELCA will cite their Lutheran Heritage, but in many matters of doctrine and practice they are more American Evangelical the the LCMS and more Roman Catholic in their Ecumenical ideals.

I often wonder why they bother looking at the "Lutheran Heritage" at all because they certainly don't espouse the doctrines of Dr. Luther.
And there are significant differences between the ELCA and the LCMS - agreed.
And both "sides" do appear to hold on to some extreme views that are not Scriptural.
ELCA often errs on the side of tolerance.
LCMS often errs on the side of intolerance.

But the unity of the Lutheranism cannot be excluded just because one is an ELCA or LCMS or WELS, since all synods have congregations that adhere to the Bible.

Now, tolerance is indeed a "graver" transgression (in my opinion) that could lead to heresy if left unchecked.
But intolerance also could become "Pharisseic" if left unchecked.

I think that the local congragations are what should be weighed in the context of Lutheranism and not the Synods.

But that's just an opinion.

Thanks,
Ed

DaRev

26th February 2007, 02:59 AM

LCMS often errs on the side of intolerance.

I'd be interested in knowing what you mean by this.

Edial

26th February 2007, 03:13 AM

I'd be interested in knowing what you mean by this.
Nothing specific.

Liberals are more tolerant in their views and they could fall into a trap of erring in that area.

Conservatives are tighter in their views and they could fall into a trap of being intolerant in their views.
(By "intolerant" I do not mean in a Scriptural sense, but Traditional).

Moderates however, could be so concerned to please everyone that they could simply get confused and have no issues about which they feel strongly. Neither hot neither cold.

Thanks,
Ed

DaRev

26th February 2007, 03:48 PM

Nothing specific.

You said that the "LCMS often errs on the side of intolerance." You must have had something in mind to make such a statement. Otherwise, you could not be able to define anything as "error."

If you can't back up your statements, perhaps you should refrain from making them.

DaSeminarian

26th February 2007, 03:54 PM

And there are significant differences between the ELCA and the LCMS - agreed.
And both "sides" do appear to hold on to some extreme views that are not Scriptural.
ELCA often errs on the side of tolerance.
LCMS often errs on the side of intolerance.

But the unity of the Lutheranism cannot be excluded just because one is an ELCA or LCMS or WELS, since all synods have congregations that adhere to the Bible.

Now, tolerance is indeed a "graver" transgression (in my opinion) that could lead to heresy if left unchecked.
But intolerance also could become "Pharisseic" if left unchecked.

I think that the local congragations are what should be weighed in the context of Lutheranism and not the Synods.

But that's just an opinion.

Thanks,
Ed

I think that the LCMS has shown a grave amount of tolerance over the past 6 years in light of the Yankee Stadium controversy.

This is an are that they should have been more intolerant. For the most part the ELCA has been tolerant on issues where it should be intolerant. Though their last Synod in convention voted down the "Gay" issue in ordination it still tends to look the other way on this issue rather than start an inquisition and drum them all out. The only reason they are making a big deal of this guy down in Atlanta is because it became public. Had it stayed private I doubt much would have been done.

Bishop Hansen has made his thoughts known on this issue and allowed it to be like the military "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" rather than stand up for what scripture says about the sin of homosexuality.

So it isn't so much that they are tolerant, but more about what they are tolerating that makes them heterodox in the eyes of the LCMS.

Church is not supposed to condone sin in any way. It is also not supposed to embrace the culture surrounding it, but stand up against the culture. The Culture is sin.

DaSeminarian

26th February 2007, 03:57 PM

Nothing specific.

Liberals are more tolerant in their views and they could fall into a trap of erring in that area.

Conservatives are tighter in their views and they could fall into a trap of being intolerant in their views.
(By "intolerant" I do not mean in a Scriptural sense, but Traditional).

Moderates however, could be so concerned to please everyone that they could simply get confused and have no issues about which they feel strongly. Neither hot neither cold.

Thanks,
Ed

In the book of Revelation chapter 3, The letter to the church in Laodicaea. The church had become "lukewarm" I challenge you to read that letter and then not see the ELCA in it's place.

Edial

26th February 2007, 05:43 PM

In the book of Revelation chapter 3, The letter to the church in Laodicaea. The church had become "lukewarm" I challenge you to read that letter and then not see the ELCA in it's place.
I think that the "lukewarm" type of a church might present a spiritual trap to some moderates.

The liberals might fall into a worse trap of extreme tolerance, such as Nicolaitans types of teaching, a church of Pergamum comes to mind.

Thanks,
Ed

Edial

26th February 2007, 05:52 PM

You said that the "LCMS often errs on the side of intolerance." You must have had something in mind to make such a statement. Otherwise, you could not be able to define anything as "error."

If you can't back up your statements, perhaps you should refrain from making them.
Well, if any conservative group errs, it errs on a side of "intolerance".

Let me give you an example that came to my mind - dress "code".
Some people that are underdressed (jeans, sneakers) feel unwelcome in some of the conservative congregations. And this is an error on the side of these conservative congregations, in my opinion.
And LCMS, as well as WELS certainly have them in their midst.

I do not think you disagree with that.

Edial

26th February 2007, 06:15 PM

I think that the LCMS has shown a grave amount of tolerance over the past 6 years in light of the Yankee Stadium controversy.

This is an are that they should have been more intolerant. For the most part the ELCA has been tolerant on issues where it should be intolerant. Though their last Synod in convention voted down the "Gay" issue in ordination it still tends to look the other way on this issue rather than start an inquisition and drum them all out. The only reason they are making a big deal of this guy down in Atlanta is because it became public. Had it stayed private I doubt much would have been done.

Bishop Hansen has made his thoughts known on this issue and allowed it to be like the military "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" rather than stand up for what scripture says about the sin of homosexuality.

So it isn't so much that they are tolerant, but more about what they are tolerating that makes them heterodox in the eyes of the LCMS.

Church is not supposed to condone sin in any way. It is also not supposed to embrace the culture surrounding it, but stand up against the culture. The Culture is sin.
Yes. The Culture is sin, in the context of the "world".
And many get entrapped in it.

And there is also a sin of self-righteousness that many fall under.

Sin is tricky and shrewd.

It actually manages to exist in the most blatant forms and some still do not see it.

Now, I am not accusing anyone according to their sin.
All I am saying is that all sin.

Now, am I saying now that since all sin let's ignore sin?
No, I'm not.

What I am saying is let's address our own sins, since we alone will be accountable for own sins.

Thanks,
Ed

DaSeminarian

26th February 2007, 06:49 PM

Yes. The Culture is sin, in the context of the "world".
And many get entrapped in it.

And there is also a sin of self-righteousness that many fall under.

Sin is tricky and shrewd.

It actually manages to exist in the most blatant forms and some still do not see it.

Now, I am not accusing anyone according to their sin.
All I am saying is that all sin.

Now, am I saying now that since all sin let's ignore sin?
No, I'm not.

What I am saying is let's address our own sins, since we alone will be accountable for own sins.

Thanks,
Ed

The problem with what you are saying is that if someone does not point out when another has sinned that person doesn't know or believe that what they are doing is sin. I agree we need to be accountable for our own sins, but we need to hold others who say they are faithful in the Lord's ways accountable as well. Our faith is more than just individualistic it is a part of the whole.

Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe that salvation comes only through the church. It is because they see the church as that which Christ founded. If you are not part of their church you are not among the saved. St. Paul spoke of One body, many parts. The foot has a function but not the same as the eye. They must all function together and if one part fails to function properly it can cause dysfunction within the whole body of Christ.

Are we our brother's keeper or not? Cain was asked this question after he killed his brother Abel. His answer was "I am not my brother's keeper." Jesus told us we are our brother's keeper which means that we are to tell one another when we see sin. It is not about finger pointing, but about helping to bring the others to repentence.

You need to broaden your aspect a bit Edial. To understand the church as a whole and not just a building we go to once a week.

Edial

26th February 2007, 07:13 PM

The problem with what you are saying is that if someone does not point out when another has sinned that person doesn't know or believe that what they are doing is sin. I agree we need to be accountable for our own sins, but we need to hold others who say they are faithful in the Lord's ways accountable as well. Our faith is more than just individualistic it is a part of the whole.

Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe that salvation comes only through the church. It is because they see the church as that which Christ founded. If you are not part of their church you are not among the saved. St. Paul spoke of One body, many parts. The foot has a function but not the same as the eye. They must all function together and if one part fails to function properly it can cause dysfunction within the whole body of Christ.

Are we our brother's keeper or not? Cain was asked this question after he killed his brother Abel. His answer was "I am not my brother's keeper." Jesus told us we are our brother's keeper which means that we are to tell one another when we see sin. It is not about finger pointing, but about helping to bring the others to repentence.

You need to broaden your aspect a bit Edial. To understand the church as a whole and not just a building we go to once a week.
Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are indeed wrong in many of their views.
Yet both of them claim to hold the entire truth.

How does one bring them to repentant state?

Let's take an extreme example.
I spent much time in GA.
In all this time I have not seen even one convert. Many are simply set in their ways.

If someone is set in their ways, no Scripture reading will help, (otherwise all that read Scriptures will see the truth right there and then).

It MUST start from a local congregation.
And the outsiders (any outsider) is brought to repentance by observing US, not listening TO us.

Christ said that we are to be a lamp on a hill, so others see our good works.

Repentance process always starts locally and then it spreads.

Now, if someone will ask me the "whys" of what I believe, I'll respond in a respectful and proper way (hopefully).

Do I point the mistakes to others?
You know that I do it all the time, even among us.

But to bring others to repentance?
It is God's work and what we need to do is to show a living example of it.

Thanks,
Ed

Jim47

26th February 2007, 08:09 PM

Edial

But to bring others to repentance?
It is God's work and what we need to do is to show a living example of it.

Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly, but this is not what Matthew 18 teaches us.

DaRev

26th February 2007, 09:26 PM

And the outsiders (any outsider) is brought to repentance by observing US, not listening TO us.

Have you ever read Romans 10:17?

Edial

27th February 2007, 12:10 AM

Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly, but this is not what Matthew 18 teaches us.
Matthew 18 is often used as a methodology of resolving conflicts where one member sinned against another.
One is to approach a member that sinned against him one-on-one. Then he is to get a witness, in case the person does not repent.
Then, if the problem is not resolved, the issue is to be revealed in front of a church and finally a discipline is to be implemented, even excommunication.

And during the process of this methodology, it is becoming void at any point of it's application once the person relents and repents.

But here we are not talking about people sinning against each other, but denominational differences.

I do not know of a better way to have another denomination or synod repenting, but by our own example of a repentant lifestyle.

Then if they do not repent it is their issue that will be resolved by God.

Personally speaking, I do not see a way to implement Matthew 18 towards the synodal and denominational differences, even sins, since one cannot practically apply the last step of Matthew 18 towards another group.

Thanks,
Ed

Edial

27th February 2007, 12:20 AM

Have you ever read Romans 10:17?
Yes, I have.

And I also read the text following v.17.

RO 10:16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" n 17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. 18 But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did:
"Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world." n
RO 10:19 Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says,
"I will make you envious by those who are not a nation;
I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding." n
RO 10:20 And Isaiah boldly says,
"I was found by those who did not seek me;
I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me." n
RO 10:21 But concerning Israel he says,
"All day long I have held out my hands
to a disobedient and obstinate people."

In that following text we see that they heard the message, understood it yet did not obey it.

Also, the text is talking about obtaining faith.
Other denominations and synods already have faith.

Our topic is not a matter about obtaining faith, but obeying it.

Thanks,
Ed

Revelation1316

27th February 2007, 03:38 AM

Err ... what is the Yankee Stadium controversy?

Thanks.

God Bless,
Rev

Jim47

27th February 2007, 08:44 AM

Matthew 18 is often used as a methodology of resolving conflicts where one member sinned against another.
One is to approach a member that sinned against him one-on-one. Then he is to get a witness, in case the person does not repent.
Then, if the problem is not resolved, the issue is to be revealed in front of a church and finally a discipline is to be implemented, even excommunication.

And during the process of this methodology, it is becoming void at any point of it's application once the person relents and repents.

But here we are not talking about people sinning against each other, but denominational differences.

I do not know of a better way to have another denomination or synod repenting, but by our own example of a repentant lifestyle.

Then if they do not repent it is their issue that will be resolved by God.

Personally speaking, I do not see a way to implement Matthew 18 towards the synodal and denominational differences, even sins, since one cannot practically apply the last step of Matthew 18 towards another group.

Thanks,
Ed

Matthew 18 affects everyone and at every level. To give you an example: One church body that is in fellowship with another and is then made aware that the other church body has taken an unscriptural belief concerning something, say abortion as an example. The orthodox church will go to its erroring church body (or synod) and tell them what they believe and teach is wrong and show them from God's Word. If the church body refuses to listen after repeated attempts then the fellowship must stop.

Edial

27th February 2007, 01:37 PM

Matthew 18 affects everyone and at every level. To give you an example: One church body that is in fellowship with another and is then made aware that the other church body has taken an unscriptural belief concerning something, say abortion as an example. The orthodox church will go to its erroring church body (or synod) and tell them what they believe and teach is wrong and show them from God's Word. If the church body refuses to listen after repeated attempts then the fellowship must stop.

I do not see how Matthew 18 could be used in that example.

Matthew 18 applies when one sins against another.

MT 18:15 "If your brother sins against you, n go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that `every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' n 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

If one denomination sins in their own practices, another denomination should not use Matthew 18, since they were not sinned against.

We could tell them that they sinned, but Matthew 18 is not applicable, since they did not sin against us.

Now, concerning having fellowship with one another, that is another matter that should be addressed outside of Matthew 18.
Matthew 18 is when one sins against another.

I really do not see it being applied in this case.

Thanks,
Ed

C.F.W. Walther

27th February 2007, 02:25 PM

Edial

27th February 2007, 02:44 PM

A brother is a brother weather singular or plural. If there is a group in church that are sinning it's the same as another denom. How can they see the errors of their ways unless it is pointed out. Look at Luther.
Of course we must point it out.

But what I am saying is that we do not have the Matthew 18 as a foundation for it, since Mt.18 is applicable when someone sins directly against you.

We could use 1Cor.5 text when within our own church.
It talks about addressing a sin that destroys the church.
There are also other texts.

But concerning other denoms, all we could do is to point the sin out and show our own repentant lifestyle hoping that they would themselves repent.

I do not know of any conversion of a repentance as a result of "bashing" each other.
Yet there are many conversions that result from careful and often time-consuming example of living out a personal testimony.

We do not disagree on the essense of this topic, just on an approach. :)

Thanks,
Ed

DaSeminarian

27th February 2007, 04:11 PM

Err ... what is the Yankee Stadium controversy?

Thanks.

God Bless,
Rev

I am sorry, I assumed that most if not everyone knew.

Sept. 11, 2001 4 planes are hijacked by members of Al Qaeda. 2 of them crash into World Trade Center buildings bringing them down and killing over 3000 people. Another crashes into the Pentagon killing many more and one more is thwarted in it's mission and crashes outside of Pittsburgh.

Sept. 23 2001 Oprah Winfrey organizes "Prayer for America" including representatives of all the different religions in the US. Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Christian. The LCMS prohibits syncretism which is prayer with other religions with the effect of making their religion just as good as Christianity or makes Christianity no better than they. However, Altantic District President David Benke shows up at the event held at Yankee Stadium and is given a few moments to "pray" with all the other religions. This causes the rank and file of the more conservative factions of our synod to become enraged that he even showed up at the event let alone pray there.

Our God is not the same as the Hindu, Muslim, or Jewish deities. We recognize Jesus Christ as not only the Son of God but the second person of the trinity. This separates us from them. We do not want people to distinguish us as the same as these other "religions" but different because we have something they will never have. Eternal life through Christ.

Revelation1316

27th February 2007, 06:30 PM

I am sorry, I assumed that most if not everyone knew.

Sept. 11, 2001 4 planes are hijacked by members of Al Qaeda. 2 of them crash into World Trade Center buildings bringing them down and killing over 3000 people. Another crashes into the Pentagon killing many more and one more is thwarted in it's mission and crashes outside of Pittsburgh.

Sept. 23 2001 Oprah Winfrey organizes "Prayer for America" including representatives of all the different religions in the US. Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Christian. The LCMS prohibits syncretism which is prayer with other religions with the effect of making their religion just as good as Christianity or makes Christianity no better than they. However, Altantic District President David Benke shows up at the event held at Yankee Stadium and is given a few moments to "pray" with all the other religions. This causes the rank and file of the more conservative factions of our synod to become enraged that he even showed up at the event let alone pray there.

Our God is not the same as the Hindu, Muslim, or Jewish deities. We recognize Jesus Christ as not only the Son of God but the second person of the trinity. This separates us from them. We do not want people to distinguish us as the same as these other "religions" but different because we have something they will never have. Eternal life through Christ.
Hmm interesting, yet conflicting.

I can definately see the point to not wanting our religion equated with falsity's like Hinduism and Islam, but then again I can see how abstaining from such 'unified prayer' could conceivably cast that branch of Christianity in a negative light and dare I say it 'cultish' in some people's eyes.

I'm on the fence here ... difficult decision.

Thanks for the explanation.

God Bless,
Rev

Jim47

27th February 2007, 07:19 PM

Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are indeed wrong in many of their views.
Yet both of them claim to hold the entire truth.

How does one bring them to repentant state?

Let's take an extreme example.
I spent much time in GA.
In all this time I have not seen even one convert. Many are simply set in their ways.

If someone is set in their ways, no Scripture reading will help, (otherwise all that read Scriptures will see the truth right there and then).

It MUST start from a local congregation.
And the outsiders (any outsider) is brought to repentance by observing US, not listening TO us.

Christ said that we are to be a lamp on a hill, so others see our good works.

Repentance process always starts locally and then it spreads.

Now, if someone will ask me the "whys" of what I believe, I'll respond in a respectful and proper way (hopefully).

Do I point the mistakes to others?
You know that I do it all the time, even among us.

But to bring others to repentance?
It is God's work and what we need to do is to show a living example of it.

Thanks,
Ed

Hey Ed

Its just like old times. ;)

It is our job to witness to people, taht is part of the great commission, but it is not what we say, but God's Word being spoken that will convict their hearts, that is they have not hardened their hearts. So we speak God's Word, but it is God who calls them.

DaRev

27th February 2007, 07:39 PM

but then again I can see how abstaining from such 'unified prayer' could conceivably cast that branch of Christianity in a negative light and dare I say it 'cultish' in some people's eyes.

How so? Christianity is by nature an exclusive "religion" in that there is no other way to God except through faith in Jesus Christ. Worshipping with other "religions" is the sam as saying "their way is a correct way, too" which contradicts the very core of the Christian faith.

While I am against unionism, I would have had far less of a problem with Benke participating in a prayer vigil with other Christians in New York than his worshipping the false gods of false religions.