Why is everything I say twisted?

[Luther073082]

Ok I've struggled with if I should post this but I'm going to.

I want to know why everything I say is twisted. I say Luther hated Jews and then we have a big fight revolving around the fact that you seem to think I mean the Jews as a race and that I'm trying to villify Luther. BTW I said in there 3 times that I don't think of them as a race. . . ignored

I say that members of my congregation have fun at a non-denominational church and you think I'm saying that is the point to worship. I said about 7 times that enjoymnet isn't just the point just an effect.

I say that one doesn't need communal or private confession to be saved and you turn that into me saying "Its a bad thing" Again I said about 4 times that I wasn't saying we shouldn't use confession but that it simpily wasn't a salvation issue. Again ignored

I feel like everyone is reading between the lines trying to find some fault with me. Am I on the inquizition here or what? Why do I have to constantly prove that I'm Lutheran enough for you? Why do I feel like people are constantly trying to twist my words to make me into a heretic?

I thought I might drop this link to you so you really all know how you make people feel here and the fact that it isn't just me.

http://www.christianforums.com/t5875228-a-non-confessional-and-moderate-lutherans-forum.html

So there I've said what I'm feeling and if you all hate me because of it and try to twist my words and make me a jerk again then it wouldn't change a thing.

[Melethiel]

With all due respect, Luther#####...Pot. Kettle. Black.

[Luther073082]

Example please. . . ?

Even so its not the same if one person twists words and acknowledges it then if 9 people twist your words on go on the attack like a pack of dogs without even looking at what or why they are on the attack.

[BigNorsk]

Well, I think you have to realize that there is a large contingent in Lutheranism that sees the purpose of education as memorizing things in exact phrases that have passed muster and any wording that deviates from those approved phrases even slightly is error that needs to be attacked. If you ask them to explain something, they will continuously just say the same phrase over and over making it seem they understand nothing but are simply a well trained parrot.

If you are just the typical person who is relaxed and just wants to talk about things, you will unwittingly fall into one misspoken phrase after another. While in Lutheranism, we are supposed to interpret what someone says with understanding and charity. That is often sorely lacking in practice.

Suddenly you will find yourself in the rather odd position of being treated as though you are willfully sinning and they will try to apply church discipline to you, certainly something that doesn't fit in a non church setting such as these forums.

Marv

[RayJGentry]

honestly, i do have to agree with Marv on this one. There is a lot of what he says. I have seen several posts where you try to explain what you want to get across and people insist on using their "proper" language and phrasing. On the other hand though, it wouldn't hurt to brush up on some basic Lutheran Theology, thought and language so that you can avoid some of this. But I've been where you are before, it just takes patience. People have been on edge here lately too, so there seems to be less leeway...but that's how it is i suppose. Stick with it and things will get better.

[Luther073082]

honestly, i do have to agree with Marv on this one. There is a lot of what he says. I have seen several posts where you try to explain what you want to get across and people insist on using their "proper" language and phrasing. On the other hand though, it wouldn't hurt to brush up on some basic Lutheran Theology, thought and language so that you can avoid some of this. But I've been where you are before, it just takes patience. People have been on edge here lately too, so there seems to be less leeway...but that's how it is i suppose. Stick with it and things will get better.

Is understanding of the doctrines not better then memorizing the exact phrasing of the doctrine?

I'm just totally feeling a bad vibe here, I'm figuring on talking about improving ourselves and improving our churchs and even maybe swapping stories. Instead what I get is this incredible focus on doctrines and trying to find heretics to put before the inquizition.

[PreachersWife2004]

Perhaps you're just doing a very lousy job of convincing yourself you're Lutheran.

As for the thread you pointed out, I need only look at who started that thread for my answer, which is I really don't care.

Non-confessional Lutheran is an oxymoron.

[ByzantineDixie]

Wow Marv...I was going to post something similar and decided to just pass.

I cut my teeth on the Lutheran forum and what you say is exactly what I learned to do so as not to cause the volcanos to erupt...use the Lutheran approved phrases and language!

Of course, eventually I strayed, but in my time here, when I was Lutheran, that did make things go more smoothly with most.

I do encourage Luther ##### to stick it out and practice. It does help you develop a good discipline with precision in forum posting. And if they jump all over you...just tell 'em what we say down here in the South..."well, bless your heart!"

[DaRev]

Ok I've struggled with if I should post this but I'm going to.

I want to know why everything I say is twisted. I say Luther hated Jews and then we have a big fight revolving around the fact that you seem to think I mean the Jews as a race and that I'm trying to villify Luther. BTW I said in there 3 times that I don't think of them as a race. . . ignored

I say that members of my congregation have fun at a non-denominational church and you think I'm saying that is the point to worship. I said about 7 times that enjoymnet isn't just the point just an effect.

I say that one doesn't need communal or private confession to be saved and you turn that into me saying "Its a bad thing" Again I said about 4 times that I wasn't saying we shouldn't use confession but that it simpily wasn't a salvation issue. Again ignored

I feel like everyone is reading between the lines trying to find some fault with me. Am I on the inquizition here or what? Why do I have to constantly prove that I'm Lutheran enough for you? Why do I feel like people are constantly trying to twist my words to make me into a heretic?

I thought I might drop this link to you so you really all know how you make people feel here and the fact that it isn't just me.

http://www.christianforums.com/t5875228-a-non-confessional-and-moderate-lutherans-forum.html

So there I've said what I'm feeling and if you all hate me because of it and try to twist my words and make me a jerk again then it wouldn't change a thing.

To offer my two cents... (and you can take it for what it's worth)

You don't come across very well. Some of your posts and statements lack a certain measure of maturity and basic understanding. The regular posters in this forum have for years now been incessantly battling people (a few who even claim to be Lutheran) on their lack of knowledge of the most basic and simplest of Lutheran teachings and practice. You don't seem to be too open to anyones input but your own. It might help to be a little more willing to learn from the learned here. Even I have learned many things from folks here (and could always stand to learn more).

[Melethiel]

DaRev has a good point. I've often butted heads with the folks here, but I've also learned a lot.

[Luther073082]

To offer my two cents... (and you can take it for what it's worth)

You don't come across very well. Some of your posts and statements lack a certain measure of maturity and basic understanding. The regular posters in this forum have for years now been incessantly battling people (a few who even claim to be Lutheran) on their lack of knowledge of the most basic and simplest of Lutheran teachings and practice. You don't seem to be too open to anyones input but your own. It might help to be a little more willing to learn from the learned here. Even I have learned many things from folks here (and could always stand to learn more).

But I do understand the simpilist of Lutheran teachings, what is happening is my words are being twisted to make it look like I don't understand those teachings.

I said they went to a non-denominational church and they had fun and somehow that got twisted into me thinking the point of worship was fun. And I never made that claim, I just side it was an effect. . .

Your input has always been a twisting of what I'm saying into something that you can call heresy. Look at the examples above, each time I never actually deviated from what the Lutheran church teaches, I just said something that got twisted into something that you can call a deviation.

As with "Lutheran approved sayings" what in the world is wrong with us that we are so concerned about the method that the message is communicated rather then the message itself.

And I'm open to input if its put in with a good heart and giving me the benifit of the doubt that when I say something like "Confession isn't necessary for salvation" that I don't mean "We don't need or should not use confession."

I guess I'm saying stop trying to read between the lines.

And no I'm not trying to convince myself I'm Lutheran, I'm trying to convince others because every post I write someone twists it into something I never met at all. And then other people go on the attack without ever reading the original thing I wrote to find out what they are attacking me for.

[QuiltAngel]

What DaRev and Mel said. Actually when I first signed up here and wandered into TCL, I was intimidated too. People seemed to know way more than I did and would state things emphatically. I would read and not post much. When I would post, it would be in the fellowship/fun threads. I learned alot on here from those same people I was first intimidated by.

The regular posters in this forum have for years now been incessantly battling people (a few who even claim to be Lutheran) on their lack of knowledge of the most basic and simplest of Lutheran teachings and practice.
Both here and in our individual lives. For me, this has even happened within my own family.

I am sorry that you feel things get "twisted." One thing about this place is that threads go off on tangents. I, for one, have learned lots from those tangents.

If anything is needed here, it is to keep threads on topic and to move new thoughts to new threads for further discussion.

Now that is my two cents, for what it is worth.

[PreachersWife2004]

And no I'm not trying to convince myself I'm Lutheran, I'm trying to convince others because every post I write someone twists it into something I never met at all. And then other people go on the attack without ever reading the original thing I wrote to find out what they are attacking me for.

Well you could fool me. You post a lot of negative stuff about Lutheran doctrines and Luther himself...I still think you're trying to convince yourself that you're Lutheran when the truth is, you just might not be Lutheran.

I do not say to insult you or belittle you, but if I had as many questions and doubts about Lutheran doctrine as you do, I would question my choice to become Lutheran and I would start searching for a different church.

[JimfromOhio]

Its the "approach" of the topic. The motivation of why you are posting and explaining your thoughts before discussing controversal topics.

[Luther073082]

Well you could fool me. You post a lot of negative stuff about Lutheran doctrines and Luther himself...I still think you're trying to convince yourself that you're Lutheran when the truth is, you just might not be Lutheran.

I do not say to insult you or belittle you, but if I had as many questions and doubts about Lutheran doctrine as you do, I would question my choice to become Lutheran and I would start searching for a different church.

Well I've said that the confessionals feel arrogent to me because they are constantly after me and belive that their doctrine is 100% true and they could not possibly be in error. I find that to be arrogence. I admit I was judging and I'm sorry.

The thing with Luther is that it wasn't anything untrue it got twisted into what is untrue.

I belive I'm Lutheran because as far as I know I belive in most Lutheran teachings. Save for posibly the teaching on pre-destination.

If I go take a test online for denominations, no matter which one I take it always comes up Lutheran either ELCA or LCMS. . . every time. My congregation and pastor seem to trust me in teaching and most of the people in the congregation tell me I know the doctrines better almost anyone else in the laity.

You can ask me questions if you like, but read exactly what I'm saying. And also accept that the ELCA and its positions also falls under "Lutheran".

Now I will give you this though, I think that I may be a bit "unorthodox" certain ways of Lutheranism outside of doctrine. I think that makes people uncomfortable sometimes.

[RayJGentry]

Yeah, but I think the thing people need to remember is that not everyone has the exact understanding or the depth of understanding as the majority. There needs to be understanding and compassion from people who don't like what someone says or how they say it...as long as they're not breaking rules, they should feel welcome and treated with patience and understanding....as long as ALL parties are willing to learn, or at least teach with humbleness, things will move a lot smoother....

[DaRev]

Your input has always been a twisting of what I'm saying into something that you can call heresy. Look at the examples above, each time I never actually deviated from what the Lutheran church teaches, I just said something that got twisted into something that you can call a deviation.

Just for the record, I never commented on your "fun" comment. I understood what you were saying there.


You can ask me questions if you like, but read exactly what I'm saying. And also accept that the ELCA and its positions also falls under "Lutheran".

Their altar fellowship with the Reformed church certainly isn't Lutheran. Read the Formula of Concord.

[Luther073082]

Just for the record, I never commented on your "fun" comment. I understood what you were saying there.

Yeah I know, and I'm sorry its pretty easy to group you guys when I see 4 posts against me and I'm trying to figure out what to respond to.


Their altar fellowship with the Reformed church certainly isn't Lutheran. Read the Formula of Concord.

I'll take a look at another time (its late here) but I don't see how alter fellowhips apply here. You have to understand that under non-confessional beliefs they still operate under most Lutheran doctrines as I see them however they find some of it contrary to scripture so they don't follow it.

And I don't necessarly agree with everything the ELCA teaches either. You've convinced me on the ordination of women as I've pointed out and plus I'm really concerned about this resolution to encourage bishops to "lighten up" on gay pastors who break celibacy and have a homosexual relationship. As far as I'm concerned one that does that should be punished the same way a single pastor who fornicated would. If we "lighten up" on him cause he's gay then we might as well be setting a double standard which is going to kill us.

I am going to prayerfully hope the ELCA realizes the error of this decision. However I take some encouragement that the resolution is non-binding, the bishop still gets to decide and the IN/KY bishop I don't think is going to "lighten up" because of some silly appeasement resolution.

[Zecryphon]

But I do understand the simpilist of Lutheran teachings, what is happening is my words are being twisted to make it look like I don't understand those teachings.

I said they went to a non-denominational church and they had fun and somehow that got twisted into me thinking the point of worship was fun. And I never made that claim, I just side it was an effect. . .

Your input has always been a twisting of what I'm saying into something that you can call heresy. Look at the examples above, each time I never actually deviated from what the Lutheran church teaches, I just said something that got twisted into something that you can call a deviation.

As with "Lutheran approved sayings" what in the world is wrong with us that we are so concerned about the method that the message is communicated rather then the message itself.

And I'm open to input if its put in with a good heart and giving me the benifit of the doubt that when I say something like "Confession isn't necessary for salvation" that I don't mean "We don't need or should not use confession."

I guess I'm saying stop trying to read between the lines.

And no I'm not trying to convince myself I'm Lutheran, I'm trying to convince others because every post I write someone twists it into something I never met at all. And then other people go on the attack without ever reading the original thing I wrote to find out what they are attacking me for.
The best advice I can give you is to read more than you post. I'm averaging about 50 posts read for every 1 post I make. I'm here to learn, not to teach. Try it. At this point you've got nothing to lose.

[Luther073082]

The best advice I can give you is to read more than you post. I'm averaging about 50 posts read for every 1 post I make. I'm here to learn, not to teach. Try it. At this point you've got nothing to lose.

Well I am trying to learn, my concern was more about comments being turned into major heresies. See my OP, it lists of what I really said and what it got turned into.

That kind of thing causes me to distrust a person and if you don't trust a person you don't necessarily want to learn from them.

Its kind of like ripping on someone or making fun of them. You can't shake their hands and meet them for the first time and start making fun of their clothes. But if we've been buds for 5 years the only thing that is off limits to make fun of is your family.

In the same way you can't really start to correct someone you have no prior relationship with based off of what you think they might be saying.

I have a very good relationship with two LCMS pastors who serve at the chapel of the ressurrection at Valpo. I'm not LCMS but if they tried to correct or teach me I'd listen to them because I have a prior relationship with them. They know me and they usually are going to understand what I mean when I say something. But that is possible because that relationship is there.

With my Sunday school students we concentrate first on our relationship with the kids and them trusting us is the most imporant thing. Even more important then what they learn. They need role models (a job I never feel I'm up to snuff for), leaders, adult friends, and teachers. And none of those can come without their trust.

[Confess]

My thoughts are that it doesn't matter how eloquant you are, people will always misunderstand and get annoyed.

I have been on discussion boards since 1996 and can never seem to get it right. :(

[porterross]

The best advice I can give you is to read more than you post. I'm averaging about 50 posts read for every 1 post I make. I'm here to learn, not to teach. Try it. At this point you've got nothing to lose....

...and even less to teach.

If you truly do have a grasp of the Confessions, you do a poor job of getting that across. As I've indicated to you previously, your application of analytical language is seriously lacking and it hinders whatever point you are trying to make. Mostly, though, you tend to blurt out many positions or statements contrary to Lutheran teaching, which causes you to do a great deal of crawfishing.
Zec's advice about reading more than you post is sound and should be seriously considered. It seems you have this forum confused with a chat room and unless you've brought enough beer for everyone, it doesn't go over well. ;)

[IowaLutheran]

. It seems you have this forum confused with a chat room and unless you've brought enough beer for everyone, it doesn't go over well. ;)

I'll take a six pack of Labatt's Blue if you're buying.

[Luther073082]

...and even less to teach.

If you truly do have a grasp of the Confessions, you do a poor job of getting that across. As I've indicated to you previously, your application of analytical language is seriously lacking and it hinders whatever point you are trying to make. Mostly, though, you tend to blurt out many positions or statements contrary to Lutheran teaching, which causes you to do a great deal of crawfishing.
Zec's advice about reading more than you post is sound and should be seriously considered. It seems you have this forum confused with a chat room and unless you've brought enough beer for everyone, it doesn't go over well. ;)


No I make statements which where twisted into that which is contrary to Lutheran teachings. Like I said, read the OP and tell me why no one took what I said at face value. Thats the problem in a nutshell, what I say needs to be taken at face value.

Well I don't consider this forum a classroom either. I'll read, I'll ask questions, but I think a solid fellowship is the basis of everything.

Oh and I don't drink beer. :D

[porterross]

I'll take a six pack of Labatt's Blue if you're buying.
It's time you experienced the joy of Texas Lutheran beverages.
http://www.shiner.com/beers/images/Bock.gif

[QuiltAngel]

Oh and I don't drink beer. :D

What? A Lutheran who does not drink beer? (My tongue is firmly planted in my cheek here)

[DaRev]

Its kind of like ripping on someone or making fun of them. You can't shake their hands and meet them for the first time and start making fun of their clothes. But if we've been buds for 5 years the only thing that is off limits to make fun of is your family.

^_^ Ha! That never stopped Larry the Cable Guy!

[Edial]

I looked at your link and would like to respond to your post in that thread ...

I feel the same way! Seriously two days ago I was thinking "is this what Lutherans are really like?"

Have you ever noticed that any time I make a post it turns into a fight and there is absolutly no one on my side in it?
When I just became a Lutheran I found this forum and eventually started posting.

No one was on my side either.

That meant that this is either an "exclusive club" or I am wrong in some ways.

In time, I found that I was wrong in some ways.

Now, this place does have a certain "club" atmosphere, but it is not necessarily all bad.
It is not perfect, but it is not all that bad either.
It needs work.


On top of that it doesn't seem like they have any respect for any other denominations. This bothers me because I feel like most of them are Lutherans first and Christians second.

Me I'm a Christian first and a Lutheran a very very distant second. . .

I am also a Christian first and a Lutheran second.

HOWEVER, the Lutherans happened to be a denomination that is rebellious in nature YET redeemed by God WHILE NOT compromising the spark that the Lutherans have.

They KNOW that we are this beacon of Christianity.
Why are we the beacon?

Because we have this balance.

Christianity is a matter of balance and individuality.

Jesus Christ was an individual. A raw individual.

John the Baptist ... the prophets.

Lutheranism, somehow, picked it up.

BUT, we are not just rebels.
We curb ourselves by the Scriptures.

It is a willful submission. :)

Why?

Because we know that we are individuals.

And every individual that is not curbed by something is a loose canon.

And since we have a fear of God, a true Lutheran always places himself/herself under the authority of Scriptures, because we KNOW that we need to be controlled by something as strong as God's word.

That is why we hate this nonesenese about homosexuality.
Homosexuality is a slap in a face to a Lutheran.
It tries to dilute the curbing authority of the Scriptures.


...

I really don't feel love there and that is sad as "Love your neighbor as yourself" is the great commandment.
"Love your neighbor as yourself" is NEVER a great commandment IF it is made to be the FIRST and the GREATEST commandment.

MT 22:37 Jesus replied: " `Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: `Love your neighbor as yourself.' n 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Thanks,
Ed

[Kalevalatar]

I can definitely relate to the "vocabulary" problem Marv, RayJGentry, and ByzantineDixie brought up. :D We may be speaking about the very same phenomenon all along, but if the terms we use are not on the same page we inevitably end up speaking cross each other. Like both Luther073082 and Ray said, it takes an honest effort and, indeed, will to look beyond the words and try to hear what the other is actually saying. I know that sometimes my state of mine is just so that I get out of the bed on the wrong side, ignore the benefit of the doubt, and automatically assume the worst.

Now I would really welcome if someone more proficient than I undertook the effort and put together an English language "Lutheran approved sayings" sticky or a link to a site where it explains that "Divine Service" means this and "Mass" means that etc. etc. in the Lutheran parlance. :thumbsup:

[BigNorsk]

I would say the best way to use the term Mass is not to use it at all for a Lutheran Service. Article II of the Smalcald makes a strong condemnation of the Mass and it's errors. To use the term Rome uses in a completely different way is going to result in confusion. Too many people already think Lutherans are just Catholics with a different Pope.

Marv

[Luther073082]

I belive divine service is ment to be a full out service that you are suppose to attend on just about every week. So every church has a divine service on sunday, sometimes two. And many churchs such as mine have a divine service on a weeday like Thursday.

All other services have different names. . . Matins for morning services, vespers for evening services. They are usually shorter then divine services and usually don't involve the use of the sacraments.

Too many people already think Lutherans are just Catholics with a different Pope.

I hate that, when people say something like that I tend to rattle off 20 reasons why we are not Catholics. The only thing is that our services are very much like a catholic service except with less Mary praying. So its easy to see why someone unfamiliar would get that impression.

[Kalevalatar]

I would say the best way to use the term Mass is not to use it at all for a Lutheran Service. Article II of the Smalcald makes a strong condemnation of the Mass and it's errors. To use the term Rome uses in a completely different way is going to result in confusion. Too many people already think Lutherans are just Catholics with a different Pope.

Marv

See, this is exactly what I mean by the "vocabulary problems." :)

In our neck of woods the Sunday ten o'clock main "God Service" is called Mass (mässa/messu). It's been called Mass in the 16th century, it's been called Mass in the 19th century, and it is called Mass in the 21st century, so naturally I went ahead and translated that as "Mass" without giving it a second thought and/or in the lack of better word at my disposal.

Of course, there is no confusion as to what "Mass" refers to in our neck of woods, but I'm curious (slightly OT, :sorry:, hope you don't mind). Luther did not shy away from calling, well, the Mass (;) ) as Messe/missae. After all, article XXIV of the Defence of the Augsburg Confession specifically deals with the Mass and declares that we do not want to abolish the Mass, but will religiously maintain and defend it -- the Mass without the Catholic, well, diversions, that is. And that amongst us masses are celebrated and the Sacrment is offered every Lord's Day. Even the Schmalkalden article you refer to says "the Mass in the Papacy," which I think makes all the difference.

What I'm sort of trying to communicate here with this lead is that if Luther could call it Mass, why should we the Lutherans censor ourselves and shy away from calling the Mass for what it is (;) ) -- a Mass without the Catholic diversions -- just because there are ignoramuses out there who might confuse us with the Papists. If they do, well, shame on them for showing their ignorance? No skin off my back.

[synger]

I've been thinking about this forum a lot, especially in light of the link Luther#### posted above.

It sounds to me that there is a group of self-described Lutherans who feel like they cannot post in discussions and debates in this main forum unless they are fully confessional, without getting attacked.

In Theology, discussion and debate is our bread and butter, and setting up a framework for people to disagree (sometimes vehemently) while still "playing nice" is part of the balance we strive for. So I looked again at the TCL wiki, which hasn't been updated since the beginning of the reforms.

It does a good job of defining the purposes of the main forum and the subforums. But it doesn't have much framework for debate.

So I took some language from the Theology rules and ginned it up as a draft for some language that might work for TCL. Please look at it and discuss it in the wiki discussion thread (http://www.christianforums.com/t5672534&nw_show=comments).

[porterross]

I would say the best way to use the term Mass is not to use it at all for a Lutheran Service. Article II of the Smalcald makes a strong condemnation of the Mass and it's errors. To use the term Rome uses in a completely different way is going to result in confusion. Too many people already think Lutherans are just Catholics with a different Pope.

Marv
Actually, Marv, we use the term off and on in our church. I was always taught that using the term was fine and now that we have more former RC's attending, it seems more and more a natural part of our vocabulary.

[Luther073082]

I've been thinking about this forum a lot, especially in light of the link Luther#### posted above.

It sounds to me that there is a group of self-described Lutherans who feel like they cannot post in discussions and debates in this main forum unless they are fully confessional, without getting attacked.

In Theology, discussion and debate is our bread and butter, and setting up a framework for people to disagree (sometimes vehemently) while still "playing nice" is part of the balance we strive for. So I looked again at the TCL wiki, which hasn't been updated since the beginning of the reforms.

It does a good job of defining the purposes of the main forum and the subforums. But it doesn't have much framework for debate.

So I took some language from the Theology rules and ginned it up as a draft for some language that might work for TCL. Please look at it and discuss it in the wiki discussion thread (http://www.christianforums.com/t5672534&nw_show=comments).

But its also an attitude that I feel like exists that basically some people are here looking for a fight.

I mean I was not intending to bait a fight by saying that my pastor's wife and the women who went to the non-denominational church had fun but it triggered a big fight because for some reason everyone thought that I ment that fun was the point of worship.

If I want to start a fight I'll write something about how I belive that Luther's writings on pre-destiantion are contrary to scripture. Not a story about some women visiting another church.

BTW fellowship, fun is the point. Maybe not in worship but fellowship usually is.

[Melethiel]

A big fight? That wasn't a big fight - it was a nice, civil discussion.
You want a big fight, come visit me in GT. :D

[PreachersWife2004]

LutherXXXXX, my problem with that statement went beyond the idea of 'fun'. It was more that a pastor's wife would take her husband's flock to another church, one that wasn't even Lutheran to "see what it was like". I wouldn't do that with my husband's members, nor would they go along with me if I ever suggested it.

People jumped on the "fun" part because it really did appear as though you were trying to make it sound "okay" because they had fun. As has been said numerous times, going to church isn't about having fun. I can't really say that it's fun hearing how I am a sinner damned to hell. But it is edifying and wonderful to hear that I have a savior from my sins who took my sins upon him on the cross. Sometimes it's "fun" singing and playing certain hymns, but even if they aren't, that doesn't make a for a "bad" worship service.

I can't think of anyone who would claim that woshipping during Lent is "fun". Does that mean the services are any less? Of course not, especially given the subject matter.

That is my opinion as to why people jumped all over the fun word.

It is my opinion that what your pastor's wife did was irresponsible. I know many may not agree with that, and I am okay with that.

[DaRev]

I would say the best way to use the term Mass is not to use it at all for a Lutheran Service. Article II of the Smalcald makes a strong condemnation of the Mass and it's errors. To use the term Rome uses in a completely different way is going to result in confusion. Too many people already think Lutherans are just Catholics with a different Pope.

Marv

Read Augustana XXIV.

[LilLamb219]

Why is everything I say twisted?

I dunno, why?

On the net, it's really, really, really hard to try to figure out what a person can be saying. That's why we need to be careful about how we word things. If time and time again what we post gets argued, is it always them? Or is it us? One has to think, wow, maybe I am not making my points as clearly as I want in the exact nature that I want?

We've all be misunderstood at one time or another as Confess pointed out so well...prayers for the baby, btw!! :)

Maybe instead of insisting that WE try to understand your points, that you take another look at how you represent your points?

Concerning Lutheran speak...well, if you read a lot of other denom's literature and start speaking in their language then come here, of course we are going to scratch our heads and say, Hey, wait, that's not right. It's not the language per se, but what the language is actually meaning. Not sure if that's coming through in the way that I want though...trying again...umm...if someone were to state something in reformed terminology in our forum, are we to think that the person is espousing Lutheran beliefs or do we maybe tend to think that the person is giving us reformed doctrine? Did I do better that time?

[Luther073082]

It is my opinion that what your pastor's wife did was irresponsible. I know many may not agree with that, and I am okay with that.

Well I'll tell you, no one in my church including my pastor has a problem with it. I wouldn't be surprised if he suggested it.

It also allowed us to get an update on how that congregation is growing and how we as a congregation may assist them in their growth. (They are new congregation)

if someone were to state something in reformed terminology in our forum, are we to think that the person is espousing Lutheran beliefs or do we maybe tend to think that the person is giving us reformed doctrine? Did I do better that time?

And what is reformed terminology vs. Lutheran terminology? I really don't care about someone's terminology if they understand the theology.

[QuiltAngel]

Luther073982
The thing with forums like this, is that one can not see or hear how something is being said. We have words in black and white to read, no expressions or inflections to help us figure out what a poster is emphasizing. Therefore, it is easy for someone to pick up on something that is not the main focus of what a poster is saying.

We also all come to these forums with our own backgrounds which will cause us to pick up on something that was not meant to be the main focus.

The problems with having just the written word gets so many people in trouble so much. One needs to be careful what and how they write. Before hitting "post" one should reread what they have written to make sure the point you are wanting to get across is written clearly.

I moderate on several forums and I can tell you that the thing that gets posters in trouble more is not making their point clear. Adding all sorts of things in the post that are not relavent also cause problems as someone is going to pick up on that and the whole thread gets derailed.

As I said before, here, there is a tendancy to get off topic in threads and this can cause much confusion. Also, there are times where a thread moves so fast, that there can be confusion.

Yeah, there can be some twisting of words, but sometimes that is done for clarification. Each person has their own posting style. It is good to sit back and read posts, one can learn alot about a person's posting style from that and knowing that helps in writing our own posts.

On a side note: the numbers in your user name must be your birthdate?

[LilLamb219]

And what is reformed terminology vs. Lutheran terminology?

It was just used as an example.

[Melethiel]

And what is reformed terminology vs. Lutheran terminology? I really don't care about someone's terminology if they understand the theology.
Terminology is an important part of theology. Whole schisms have happened because of misunderstandings regarding terminology...in theology, like in science, words have exact meanings.

[Luther073082]

On a side note: the numbers in your user name must be your birthdate?

Yes, its really tough here because we could also be talking about Luther as in Martin Luther. . . But anyplace else everyone just calls me Luther.

[LilLamb219]

Terminology is an important part of theology. Whole schisms have happened because of misunderstandings regarding terminology...in theology, like in science, words have exact meanings.

Yep, what she said :clap:

[Protoevangel]

Well I've said that the confessionals feel arrogent to me because they are constantly after me and belive that their doctrine is 100% true and they could not possibly be in error. I find that to be arrogence. I admit I was judging and I'm sorry.
To believe your doctrine is 100% true is not arrogance, but real belief. If you don't believe your doctrine is 100% true, then you don't really believe it at all.

And what is reformed terminology vs. Lutheran terminology? I really don't care about someone's terminology if they understand the theology.
To properly understand the Theology, correct terminology is essential. Sloppy terminology inevitably leads to sloppy Theology.




Edit: Sorry Mel, I missed reading this last page before my reply.

[LilLamb219]

"You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later."

NO!!! Sorry, Protoevangel, I wanted to rep you for that!

[Confess]

I agree with Proto..

To declare it arrogance to believe that your doctrine is 100% true is no different then when someone calls me arrogant just for believing that there is only one True God.

Faith is not arrogance.

[Luther073082]

I agree with Proto..

To declare it arrogance to believe that your doctrine is 100% true is no different then when someone calls me arrogant just for believing that there is only one True God.

Faith is not arrogance.

Well I'll give you that.

[JoeCatch]

To believe your doctrine is 100% true is not arrogance, but real belief. If you don't believe your doctrine is 100% true, then you don't really believe it at all.

I disagree. It's quite likely that my beliefs about anything (theology included), taken as a complete set, contain errors. And yet, while I maintain the epistemic humility to recognize that the complete set of my beliefs may (and probably does!) be erroneous on some points, I still firmly believe that I have "real belief." It's quite possible, and most plausible in my estimation, to believe that each member of a set of beliefs {B1, B2, ... , Bn} is true, and still affirm that it's likely (given a sufficiently large set such as "the set of all of one's theological beliefs") that at least one member of that set is false. There's no contradiction here, so what's the problem?

[Luther073082]

I disagree. It's quite likely that my beliefs about anything (theology included), taken as a complete set, contain errors. And yet, while I maintain the epistemic humility to recognize that the complete set of my beliefs may (and probably does!) be erroneous on some points, I still firmly believe that I have "real belief." It's quite possible, and most plausible in my estimation, to believe that each member of a set of beliefs {B1, B2, ... , Bn} is true, and still affirm that it's likely (given a sufficiently large set such as "the set of all of one's theological beliefs") that at least one member of that set is false. There's no contradiction here, so what's the problem?

She is arguing that if you have doubts that you are 100% correct in doctrine then you would have doubts that you are correct in your beliefs in christ.

My disagreement comes in the fact that Christ is either savior or not. However theology and doctrine are much larger and more complex thereby creating a much larger possibilty on being incorrect on just one issue.

[JoeCatch]

She is arguing that if you have doubts that you are 100% correct in doctrine then you would have doubts that you are correct in your beliefs in christ.

My disagreement comes in the fact that Christ is either savior or not. However theology and doctrine are much larger and more complex thereby creating a much larger possibilty on being incorrect on just one issue.

I think the "she" to whom I responded was a "he," but no matter. Regardless, if the claim is that anything less than absolute certainty about the truth of the set of one's theological beliefs in its entirely is tantamount to lack of true belief in Christ, then I certainly reject that too.

I'm quite certain that there are many millions of Christians who are not only uncertain, but just flat-out wrong, in many of their theological beliefs but who still have real faith in the true Christ who is the one Lord of all.

You are right that, since no theological belief exists in a vacuum, it's unlikely that one would be wrong about just one belief but no others. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority (not only of Christians, but of humans period) are wildly inconsistent in their beliefs when you view them as a complete set. Even the most careful thinkers are guilty of inconsistencies on occasions. So, even though false beliefs rarely (if ever) exist in isolation, I still affirm that it's not only possible but commonplace for "felicitously inconsistent" Christians to have real faith in the true Christ.

[LilLamb219]

Regardless, if the claim is that anything less than absolute certainty about the truth of the set of one's theological beliefs in its entirely is tantamount to lack of true belief in Christ, then I certainly reject that too.

That's not what Protoevangel was saying.

He's not doubting that someone is a Christian.

[QuiltAngel]

You know, I am thinking that if someone is questioning what another is saying, the post should be directed at that person and that person only should reply as to what they meant, not someone else.

Otherwise, your replly should say something to the effect, "I think they said."

[LilLamb219]

Sorry. :(

[JoeCatch]

That's not what Protoevangel was saying.

He's not doubting that someone is a Christian.

His point, as I understood it, was that, in order to truly believe in the doctrines one claims to believe in, one must be 100% certain that those doctrines, taken as a full set, are without error. His exact words were, "If you don't believe your doctrine is 100% true, then you don't really believe it at all." Note that my reading him that was was (deliberately) tentative; if his view is that anything less than absolute confidence in the truth of the full set of one's beliefs in its totality is the same as not really believing, then it's not implausible that such a view could be understood as denying that belief that fails to meet that standard qualifies as true faith. Nevertheless, as clear as that potential implication is, he did not explicitly make it; hence I couched my rejection of that view in terms of "if the claim is..." rather than asserting with certainty that this actually was his view.

Regardless of where he stands on whether such believers (or "not really believers," on his view) are Christians, though, I still contend that he's way off. It's clear to me that, in order to "really believe" in one's theological convictions, one need not believe that the entire set of her theological beliefs is without error. One need not be absolutely certain about the truth of even a single proposition in order to truly believe it, much less so with the totality of a large set of intricately interconnected propositions about which one's degrees of certainty may be all over the place.

[QuiltAngel]

Sorry. :(
I was thinking of another post.

[LilLamb219]

Yeah, but I did the same thing though...so I thought I'd apologize :)

[QuiltAngel]

Yeah, but I did the same thing though...so I thought I'd apologize :)

:doh: gotcha

[Protoevangel]

Well I've said that the confessionals feel arrogent to me because they are constantly after me and belive that their doctrine is 100% true and they could not possibly be in error. I find that to be arrogence. I admit I was judging and I'm sorry.To believe your doctrine is 100% true is not arrogance, but real belief. If you don't believe your doctrine is 100% true, then you don't really believe it at all.I disagree. It's quite likely that my beliefs about anything (theology included), taken as a complete set, contain errors. And yet, while I maintain the epistemic humility to recognize that the complete set of my beliefs may (and probably does!) be erroneous on some points, I still firmly believe that I have "real belief." It's quite possible, and most plausible in my estimation, to believe that each member of a set of beliefs {B1, B2, ... , Bn} is true, and still affirm that it's likely (given a sufficiently large set such as "the set of all of one's theological beliefs") that at least one member of that set is false. There's no contradiction here, so what's the problem?
Luther073082, JoeCatch,

No problem, just simple fact. To the degree that one doubts the correctness of a position, to that same degree, naturally and necessarily, calling that position a belief becomes a categorical fallacy (i.e. the more one doubts, the less one believes). In other words, however much one thinks a claim might be wrong, then to that same degree, they do not believe that claim. A simple illustration: I believe in God. To the degree that I feel I may be wrong, that so-called belief may be merely an opinion, a position, nothing more than a hunch, doubt, all the way to outright disbelief. This holds as true with sets of beliefs as it does with individual beliefs.

If a Confessional Lutheran believes that Confessional Lutheran doctrine is 100% correct, that is not arrogance, although it does not preclude arrogance either. however, If a Confessional Lutheran doubts Confessional Lutheran doctrine, then Confessional certainly no longer applies, and to the degree that he or she doubts, Lutheran may not either.

But I am not here to debate. I have made my case, and this one clarification. You can accept it or reject it as you will. God bless.







LilLamb219, no apologies please. You are exactly correct.

[JoeCatch]

Sorry, ProtoEvangel, I still think the way you're cashing out 'belief' is wrong. Absolute certainty simply is not necessary for genuine belief. Your slippery slope argument holds no water; there are plenty of things that people believe without absolute certainty without sliding into "outright disbelief." Just because my certainty regarding the truth of a proposition is less than 100%, it does not follow that the degree to which I believe it will inevitably demonstrate a downward trend. Why would anybody believe that?

[Protoevangel]

Sorry, ProtoEvangel, I still think the way you're cashing out 'belief' is wrong. Absolute certainty simply is not necessary for genuine belief. Your slippery slope argument holds no water; there are plenty of things that people believe without absolute certainty without sliding into "outright disbelief." Just because my certainty regarding the truth of a proposition is less than 100%, it does not follow that the degree to which I believe it will inevitably demonstrate a downward trend. Why would anybody believe that?
I was going to let this slide, as I am not here for debate, but when I remembered the title of the thread, "Why is everything I say twisted?" I laughed, and decided to go ahead and reply. Besides, I would hate let someone think that the mischaracterization above was my actual position. It is not a slippery slope argument that I was presenting. The fact that I was communicating, is that doubt and belief are indeed inversely related. The straw man you are attacking was never part of my assertion... Although I could see you having a valid point, if all I had stated were the "illustration" itself.

Here, even slightly modify the wording, to eliminate confusion:

From: "To the degree that I feel I may be wrong, that so-called belief becomes merely an opinion, a position, eventually nothing more than a hunch, doubt, and finally outright disbelief."

To: "To the degree that I feel I may be wrong, that so-called belief may be merely an opinion, a position, nothing more than a hunch, doubt, all the way to outright disbelief."

Hopefully that is clearer. Sorry for contributing to any confusion.

[JoeCatch]

Protoevangel,

Thanks for this clarification. Yes, I did read your original phrasing ("belief becomes ... finally outright disbelief") to indicate that you believe that anything but absolute certainty inevitably slides into outright disbelief because that phrasing made it seem like those stages of progressive uncertainty were somehow the natural course of a single belief. (I'm glad you agree that such a view would be silly, by the way!) Thanks for rewording it so that your actual meaning would be clearer.

But, with regard to your position as I now understand it, it's not controversial that doubt and belief share an inverse relationship. Nevertheless, I still reject your view that anything less than absolute certainty is necessarily something less than genuine belief. (At least I think that's your view, based on your use of "so-called" to describe any propositional attitude that purports to be belief without absolute certainty.) But, especially since you're not interested in debating--and I totally respect that, as I don't think anyone ought to be forced into a debate on his views if he's not interested in debating them--we're unlikely to reach a consensus on the question. Thanks again for the clarification, though!

[DaSeminarian]

Ok I've struggled with if I should post this but I'm going to.

I want to know why everything I say is twisted. I say Luther hated Jews and then we have a big fight revolving around the fact that you seem to think I mean the Jews as a race and that I'm trying to villify Luther. BTW I said in there 3 times that I don't think of them as a race. . . ignored

I say that members of my congregation have fun at a non-denominational church and you think I'm saying that is the point to worship. I said about 7 times that enjoymnet isn't just the point just an effect.

I say that one doesn't need communal or private confession to be saved and you turn that into me saying "Its a bad thing" Again I said about 4 times that I wasn't saying we shouldn't use confession but that it simpily wasn't a salvation issue. Again ignored

I feel like everyone is reading between the lines trying to find some fault with me. Am I on the inquizition here or what? Why do I have to constantly prove that I'm Lutheran enough for you? Why do I feel like people are constantly trying to twist my words to make me into a heretic?

I thought I might drop this link to you so you really all know how you make people feel here and the fact that it isn't just me.

http://www.christianforums.com/t5875228-a-non-confessional-and-moderate-lutherans-forum.html

So there I've said what I'm feeling and if you all hate me because of it and try to twist my words and make me a jerk again then it wouldn't change a thing.

First of all, let me apologize for any attitude you might have perceived from me. Big Norsk is somewhat correct when he states that there is a set of "Lutheran phrases" that if deviated from will tend to be focused on. I don't like to use the word attack, but I can understand how you might think we are doing so. We should be a little better at being diplomatic about how we educate others in the Lutheran faith.

We see worship differently than other protestants. American Evangelicals call themselves "Protestants" but really they ripped the word off of us.

Maybe if you expressed in what way your friends "enjoyed" the service it might help us to understand what is meant by enjoyed. i.e. I might enjoy the fact that a service is totally liturgical whereas someone might enjoy that many hymns were sung. Give us more context so that we have something with which to fully understand. I will try not to jump all over your words if you can give me more context.

God's blessings
Scott

[BigNorsk]

Read Augustana XXIV.
What makes you think I haven't read it? Are you implying the Smalcald Articles are in error?

Do you agree with these words? Do you hold a quia subscription to these words?


That the Mass in the Papacy must be the greatest and most horrible abomination, as it directly and powerfully conflicts with this chief article, and yet above and before all other popish idolatries it has been the chief and most specious.

For it (the Mass) is but a pure invention of men, and has not been commanded by God; and every invention of man we may [safely] discard,

Secondly. It (the Mass) is an unnecessary thing, which can be omitted without sin and danger.

Let [care be taken that] it be publicly preached to the people that the Mass as men's twaddle [commentitious affair or human figment] can be omitted without sin, and that no one will be condemned who does not observe it, but that he can be saved in a better way without the Mass. I wager [Thus it will come to pass] that the Mass will then collapse of itself, not only among the insane [rude] common people, but also among all pious, Christian, reasonable, God-fearing hearts; and that the more, when they would hear that the Mass is a [very] dangerous thing, fabricated and invented without the will and Word of God.

Fourthly. Since such innumerable and unspeakable abuses have arisen in the whole world from the buying and selling of masses, the Mass should by right be relinquished, if for no other purpose than to prevent abuses, even though in itself it had something advantageous and good. How much more ought we to relinquish it, so as to prevent [escape] forever these horrible abuses, since it is altogether unnecessary, useless, and dangerous, and we can obtain everything by a more necessary, profitable, and certain way without the Mass.

In addition to all this, this dragon's tail, [I mean] the Mass, has begotten a numerous vermin-brood of manifold idolatries.

Do you agree with Luther's words as recorded in the Smalcald Articles or do you not?


Marv

[Luther073082]

First of all, let me apologize for any attitude you might have perceived from me. Big Norsk is somewhat correct when he states that there is a set of "Lutheran phrases" that if deviated from will tend to be focused on. I don't like to use the word attack, but I can understand how you might think we are doing so. We should be a little better at being diplomatic about how we educate others in the Lutheran faith.

We see worship differently than other protestants. American Evangelicals call themselves "Protestants" but really they ripped the word off of us.

Maybe if you expressed in what way your friends "enjoyed" the service it might help us to understand what is meant by enjoyed. i.e. I might enjoy the fact that a service is totally liturgical whereas someone might enjoy that many hymns were sung. Give us more context so that we have something with which to fully understand. I will try not to jump all over your words if you can give me more context.

God's blessings
Scott

Well first of all I've been a Christian for roughly 4 years. (I can't say that I have specific date that I accepted Christ as it was a process) Which means I've been offically a Lutheran for about 3 years. So that is part of the terminology right there. Plus in my church we don't focus on "approved Lutheran terminology" either as we are more concerned about our faith then theology.

Secondly the reason I feel like I'm under attack half the time is my "unapproved phrases" always have about 6 people trying to correct me at once instead of 1 person. 1 person could probably clarify what I mean but 6 people don't clarify they just feel like a pack of wolves.

But see it bothers me that we get caught up so much in our terminology that if someone deviates from that terminology its somehow a heresy. I mean if the approved phrase is "they enjoyed the service" and not "they had fun" are we not getting to the point where we are no longer thinking and just repeating the book of concord?

[PreachersWife2004]

I don't think it's the term Mass so much as the action in Mass that Luther was condemning.

We don't use the word, however, because of the negative connotation associated with the word.

Our communion services are called just that: communion services. We don't call it the Eucharist, either.

[LilLamb219]

Luther...for one thing, Lutherans don't go around saying that we became Christians when we accepted Christ, or any variations of that (gave my heart, submitted to Him, asked him into our hearts, etc...). The reason why we don't say those things is because we look at who is running the verbs. In those statements man is running the verbs for his salvation and we know that can't be true...God runs the verbs for our salvation as God saves us 100%. We don't have a part in it.

So, right there is something that makes our eyebrows go up and we think to ourselves...is that person Lutheran speaking that way? We don't believe in synergism.

[IowaLutheran]

The key distinction is that the Smalcald Articles qualifies the term "mass" by adding the phrase "in the papacy".

The Augsburg Confession states that "the mass is retained among us, and celebrated with the highest reverence."

Mass as described in the AC = ok

Papal Mass as described in the SA = not ok, for various reasons described in the confessions (selling masses for money, private masses, implying that we are adding to Christ's sacrifice on the cross through our sacramental piety, etc.)

[IowaLutheran]

Our communion services are called just that: communion services. We don't call it the Eucharist, either.

The term "eucharist" is a thoroughly Biblical term, as I believe the Greek "eucharistia" is found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke's versions of the Last Supper.

[Luther073082]

Luther...for one thing, Lutherans don't go around saying that we became Christians when we accepted Christ, or any variations of that (gave my heart, submitted to Him, asked him into our hearts, etc...). The reason why we don't say those things is because we look at who is running the verbs. In those statements man is running the verbs for his salvation and we know that can't be true...God runs the verbs for our salvation as God saves us 100%. We don't have a part in it.

So, right there is something that makes our eyebrows go up and we think to ourselves...is that person Lutheran speaking that way? We don't believe in synergism.

But I said "I accepted" Christ. . . which I did. God gave me a clear choice and I made it.

Besides I disagree with Luther's views on pre-destination as per one of the books of timothy indicationg "God desires all to be saved" I don't belive one needs to agree with Luther on everything to be a Lutheran. Just the basis.

I can not for the life of me logically understand how God could withhold the gift of faith in which is required to belive in Christ from someone and yet claim that he desires all to be saved.

And plus how am I suppose to claim to my parents how I have a God of love when God has thus far refused to save them and in all likelyhood are bound for Hell. Maybe my emotions are getting in the way of good theology I don't know but I can't belive that a God of love is going to withhold from my parents the gift they need to be saved but say that he loves them.

Now what does Luther use to conter the assertion in timothy that God desires all to be saved.

[LilLamb219]

Luther, it's man who damns himself. That's the part you're forgetting about I think.

[LilLamb219]

I'm starting a new thread for "accepting", ok?

[IowaLutheran]

But I said "I accepted" Christ. . . which I did. God gave me a clear choice and I made it.

Besides I disagree with Luther's views on pre-destination as per one of the books of timothy indicationg "God desires all to be saved" I don't belive one needs to agree with Luther on everything to be a Lutheran. Just the basis.

I can not for the life of me logically understand how God could withhold the gift of faith in which is required to belive in Christ from someone and yet claim that he desires all to be saved.

And plus how am I suppose to claim to my parents how I have a God of love when God has thus far refused to save them and in all likelyhood are bound for Hell. Maybe my emotions are getting in the way of good theology I don't know but I can't belive that a God of love is going to withhold from my parents the gift they need to be saved but say that he loves them.

Now what does Luther use to conter the assertion in timothy that God desires all to be saved.

Luther doesn't contradict Timothy. You're confusing Calvinist ideas of predestination with Lutheran ideas of predestination.

Lutherans believe God does desire all to be saved and that Christ's sacrifice is for all. Some reject it though, so Lutherans do not believe in "universal salvation." Calvinists believe in "double predestination" - i.e., before the creation of the world, God predestined some to be damned and some to be saved.

Also, you did not make a "choice" to follow God - the Holy Spirit has moved within you to receive the grace of God and you have not rejected it. It was not a "choice" you made through your own willpower.

[Luther073082]

Also, you did not make a "choice" to follow God - the Holy Spirit has moved within you to receive the grace of God and you have not rejected it. It was not a "choice" you made through your own willpower.

I'll take it to another thread but thats the problem I have. In effect that is still the same thing. The Holy Spirit is God, if the Holy Spirit chooses to only move within some people and not others then it is effect the same thing. God has choosen some to be saved and others to be damned.

I do not belive a God of love chooses damnation for someone. They must choose that for themselves.

[KEPLER]

Well, I think you have to realize that there is a large contingent in Lutheranism that sees the purpose of education as memorizing things in exact phrases that have passed muster and any wording that deviates from those approved phrases even slightly is error that needs to be attacked. If you ask them to explain something, they will continuously just say the same phrase over and over making it seem they understand nothing but are simply a well trained parrot.

If you are just the typical person who is relaxed and just wants to talk about things, you will unwittingly fall into one misspoken phrase after another. While in Lutheranism, we are supposed to interpret what someone says with understanding and charity. That is often sorely lacking in practice.

Suddenly you will find yourself in the rather odd position of being treated as though you are willfully sinning and they will try to apply church discipline to you, certainly something that doesn't fit in a non church setting such as these forums.

Marv


As with "Lutheran approved sayings" what in the world is wrong with us that we are so concerned about the method that the message is communicated rather then the message itself.

Marv is 100% correct here, and what is more, Lutherans will appeal to both Scripture and the Confessions to support this rigid adherence. Consider:
What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. and
50] But as regards terms and expressions, it is best and safest to use and retain the form of sound words employed concerning this article in the Holy Scriptures and the above-mentioned books.

The solid declaration is basing it's instructions here on Paul instructions to Timothy. So, you see, part and parcel of being Lutheran is not to confuse things by introducing novel vocabulary. Now, there are some who will take this principle to its absurd extreme (Paul McCain comes to mind) and say that this means we NEVER under any circumstances express our theology in any way other than the accepted way, which is found in Scripture and the BoC. Of course, this just turns us all into parrots.

No, it's okay to use new vocabulary, but you had better understand the potential mis-readings of what you are going to say, and delimit the meaning of your discourse appropriately.

And I'm open to input if its put in with a good heart and giving me the benifit of the doubt that when I say something like "Confession isn't necessary for salvation" that I don't mean "We don't need or should not use confession."

I guess I'm saying stop trying to read between the lines. Indeed. Bear in mind, there is a dual responsibility here. Good Lutherans are REQUIRED to put the "best construction on things". When they see a POSSIBLE misreading, and then conclude that that was in fact your intent, they have violated the eighth commandment. By the same token, as I said above, it is incumbent on all of us who speak to try to be as clear as we possibly can, and accept correction when it is offered.

And no I'm not trying to convince myself I'm Lutheran, I'm trying to convince others because every post I write someone twists it into something I never met at all. And then other people go on the attack without ever reading the original thing I wrote to find out what they are attacking me for.Well you could fool me. You post a lot of negative stuff about Lutheran doctrines and Luther himself...I still think you're trying to convince yourself that you're Lutheran when the truth is, you just might not be Lutheran.

I do not say to insult you or belittle you, but if I had as many questions and doubts about Lutheran doctrine as you do, I would question my choice to become Lutheran and I would start searching for a different church.
A prime example of not putting the best construction on things. This poster continues to ascribe to you malicious intent, when you have categorically denied any such intent. Without a doubt, this is bearing false witness.

I belive I'm Lutheran because as far as I know I belive in most Lutheran teachings. Save for posibly the teaching on pre-destination.
We generally use the term "election". (See? There I go again! I just can't help myself! ;)) Election is intimately tied to Justification by Grace Alone through Faith Alone. If you lose election, you lose Justification, which is the heart of Lutheran theology. Again, if you want some reading on this, PM me (or DaRev or filo) and I'm happy to provide you with a reading list.



And I don't necessarly agree with everything the ELCA teaches either. You've convinced me on the ordination of women as I've pointed out and plus I'm really concerned about this resolution to encourage bishops to "lighten up" on gay pastors who break celibacy and have a homosexual relationship. As far as I'm concerned one that does that should be punished the same way a single pastor who fornicated would. If we "lighten up" on him cause he's gay then we might as well be setting a double standard which is going to kill us.

I am going to prayerfully hope the ELCA realizes the error of this decision. However I take some encouragement that the resolution is non-binding, the bishop still gets to decide and the IN/KY bishop I don't think is going to "lighten up" because of some silly appeasement resolution.

I think others on this board would do well to take note of this...

My thoughts are that it doesn't matter how eloquant you are, people will always misunderstand and get annoyed.

I have been on discussion boards since 1996 and can never seem to get it right. :(

On the net, it's really, really, really hard to try to figure out what a person can be saying. That's why we need to be careful about how we word things. If time and time again what we post gets argued, is it always them? Or is it us? One has to think, wow, maybe I am not making my points as clearly as I want in the exact nature that I want?

Preach it, Sisters!:preach:

Maybe instead of insisting that WE try to understand your points, that you take another look at how you represent your points?

Concerning Lutheran speak...well, if you read a lot of other denom's literature and start speaking in their language then come here, of course we are going to scratch our heads and say, Hey, wait, that's not right. It's not the language per se, but what the language is actually meaning. Not sure if that's coming through in the way that I want though...trying again...umm...if someone were to state something in reformed terminology in our forum, are we to think that the person is espousing Lutheran beliefs or do we maybe tend to think that the person is giving us reformed doctrine? Did I do better that time?

This is the big turn-off, Luther######. The general evanjely gobbledygook which passes for "theology" or "doctrine" in mainstream American Christianity is crap. Period. 99% of it comes out of 19th century revivalism and restorationism which may be the two most heretical movements in the entire history of Christianity. Lutherans are doing their darndest to keep this nonsense from infecting our Congregations (especially those of us who were raised in revivalistic denominations!), and yet people still keep trying to bring it in.

Well I'll tell you, no one in my church including my pastor has a problem with it. I wouldn't be surprised if he suggested it.

It also allowed us to get an update on how that congregation is growing and how we as a congregation may assist them in their growth. (They are new congregation)

What hath Wittenberg to do with Wheaton?

And what is reformed terminology vs. Lutheran terminology? I really don't care about someone's terminology if they understand the theology.For all their emphasis on the right use of words, this is one that nearly all Lutherans screw up: they use the word "Reformed" to refer to all other evangelical groups that aren't Lutheran. IOW, they call Methodists, Baptists, Pentecostals, Charimatics, EV Free, non-denominationals, Presbyterians, all of them "Reformed". This is patently wrong. Of that list, ONLY Presbyterians are "Reformed".

So, here's a little lesson for you, and you have my permission to use this on anyone that you hear misuse it in the future. ONLY those denominations which base their theology on John Calvin and his heirs (Presbyterians, Christian Reformed, some Anglicans) are "Reformed". ANYONE who refers to non-Calvinistic church bodies as "reformed" is to be laughed at unceasingly until they mend their ways. All those other church bodies may be referred to as "Arminian" or mainstream evangelical, or feel free to use another word.

To believe your doctrine is 100% true is not arrogance, but real belief. If you don't believe your doctrine is 100% true, then you don't really believe it at all.

To properly understand the Theology, correct terminology is essential. Sloppy terminology inevitably leads to sloppy Theology.

"You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later."

NO!!! Sorry, Protoevangel, I wanted to rep you for that!
Don't worry, LilLamb, I got him for you!

Well first of all I've been a Christian for roughly 4 years. (I can't say that I have specific date that I accepted Christ as it was a process) Which means I've been offically a Lutheran for about 3 years. So that is part of the terminology right there. Plus in my church we don't focus on "approved Lutheran terminology" either as we are more concerned about our faith then theology.

Secondly the reason I feel like I'm under attack half the time is my "unapproved phrases" always have about 6 people trying to correct me at once instead of 1 person. 1 person could probably clarify what I mean but 6 people don't clarify they just feel like a pack of wolves.

But see it bothers me that we get caught up so much in our terminology that if someone deviates from that terminology its somehow a heresy. I mean if the approved phrase is "they enjoyed the service" and not "they had fun" are we not getting to the point where we are no longer thinking and just repeating the book of concord?

Luther...for one thing, Lutherans don't go around saying that we became Christians when we accepted Christ, or any variations of that (gave my heart, submitted to Him, asked him into our hearts, etc...). The reason why we don't say those things is because we look at who is running the verbs. In those statements man is running the verbs for his salvation and we know that can't be true...God runs the verbs for our salvation as God saves us 100%. We don't have a part in it.

So, right there is something that makes our eyebrows go up and we think to ourselves...is that person Lutheran speaking that way? We don't believe in synergism.

When we hear people say, "Well, I accepted Christ when...," our warning bells go off. "What does this mean?," we ask ourselves. Does this person think that they are a believer because of their act of acceptance? Or are they just casually referring to the date when they first believed? If the former, it's heresy; if the latter, it's merely sloppy.

Luther######, don't give up here. Yes, this is a rasty bunch of goats (me included), but it's only because we love this stuff.


And ALWAYS remember: debating theology IS fellowship! ;)

Cheers,

Kepler

[KEPLER]

I'm starting a new thread for "accepting", ok?
Good!

[DaRev]

What makes you think I haven't read it? Are you implying the Smalcald Articles are in error?

Do you agree with these words? Do you hold a quia subscription to these words?

Do you agree with Luther's words as recorded in the Smalcald Articles or do you not?



The key words in the article you quoted are "the Mass in the Papacy". This article is referring to the Roman Catholic version of the Mass which Luther rejected. But in Augustana XXIV is clearly states "Falsely are our churches accused of abolishing the Mass; for the Mass is retained among us, and celebrated with the highest reverence." Luther's objections were based upon parts of the papal Mass that were unScriptural and the abuses of the Mass in the Church of the time.

So, to answer your question: In regards to the words of Luther in the Smalcald articles in the proper context in which they are written, yes I agree with Luther's words. I also agree with the Augustana XXIV. They are not contradictory at all. When read in their proper contexts, they are basically saying the same thing.

Rev

[IowaLutheran]

The key words in the article you quoted are "the Mass in the Papacy". This article is referring to the Roman Catholic version of the Mass which Luther rejected. But in Augustana XXIV is clearly states "Falsely are our churches accused of abolishing the Mass; for the Mass is retained among us, and celebrated with the highest reverence." Luther's objections were based upon parts of the papal Mass that were unScriptural and the abuses of the Mass in the Church of the time.

So, to answer your question: In regards to the words of Luther in the Smalcald articles in the proper context in which they are written, yes I agree with Luther's words. I also agree with the Augustana XXIV. They are not contradictory at all. When read in their proper contexts, they are basically saying the same thing.

Rev

Great minds think alike! See my post # 69.

[DaRev]

The key distinction is that the Smalcald Articles qualifies the term "mass" by adding the phrase "in the papacy".

The Augsburg Confession states that "the mass is retained among us, and celebrated with the highest reverence."

Mass as described in the AC = ok

Papal Mass as described in the SA = not ok, for various reasons described in the confessions (selling masses for money, private masses, implying that we are adding to Christ's sacrifice on the cross through our sacramental piety, etc.)

Thanks, IL. I reposnded to Marv before I read your post.

[DaRev]

But I said "I accepted" Christ. . . which I did. God gave me a clear choice and I made it.

Here's an example.

You didn't accept Christ. He accepted you. At some point you realized His acceptance of you. That's the difference between Lutheran and decision theologies.

[Luther073082]

Here's an example.

You didn't accept Christ. He accepted you. At some point you realized His acceptance of you. That's the difference between Lutheran and decision theologies.

But then is God not accepting of everyone, its just that some fail to realize it?

[KEPLER]

But then is God not accepting of everyone, its just that some fail to realize it?
Perhaps. It is a well-known fact that many people who have been incarcerated in prison would rather stay there than be free.

[PreachersWife2004]

Kepler, you didn't need to edit my name out of your post. I'm a big girl and I stand by what I wrote. I do question whether or not Lutherxxxx is actually a Lutheran...not because I think he's a poor Lutheran, but because he doubts and contradicts so many of the Lutheran doctrines.

But I guess in your world we should just ignore it and be glad that one more person has the Lutheran icon next to their name?

[DaRev]

But then is God not accepting of everyone, its just that some fail to realize it?

EXACTLY!!! God IS accepting of everyone, yet not everyone realizes it. They either don't realize it because no one has told them about it ("Faith comes by hearing..." Romans 10) or they have been made aware of this gift and they actively reject it.

See my post in the "Accept" thread for a little more detail.

[Luther073082]

Perhaps. It is a well-known fact that many people who have been incarcerated in prison would rather stay there than be free.

And that applies to us because we can choose to remain in sin and reject God because we do not want to belive that there is a being more powerful then we OR its because we like sin too much.

Like a person in prison could reject a pardon from the governer either A because they think the governor is a jerk and they don't want to take his gift. Or B because they like being in prison.

Lutherxxxx is actually a Lutheran...not because I think he's a poor Lutheran, but because he doubts and contradicts so many of the Lutheran doctrines.

But I guess in your world we should just ignore it and be glad that one more person has the Lutheran icon next to their name?

Once I understand what is being said I find I agree with most of it. However the terminology is new to me as has been pointed out. Like I said I've read Luther but what I read from Luther seemed to say that God choose some people and not others and I was wondering how that is different from calvanism.

This is again like my life preserver analogy. God tosses out a life preserver and we choose to grab on or not. Well of course if we choose to grab on it was the life preserver (Christ) who saved us, because we didn't save ourselves. However I would use the terminology of accepting Christ because I choose to grab on.

The only difference is in this is that God does not throw the life preserver to people he knows will not grab onto it. Its a waste

[LilLamb219]

Some prisoners don't want to believe that they're set free.

[Luther073082]

Some prisoners don't want to believe that they're set free.

So they don't belive in Christ because they don't want to?

In other words its too hard for them to belive there is freedom from the sin?

[KEPLER]

Kepler, you didn't need to edit my name out of your post. I'm a big girl and I stand by what I wrote. I do question whether or not Lutherxxxx is actually a Lutheran...not because I think he's a poor Lutheran, but because he doubts and contradicts so many of the Lutheran doctrines.

But I guess in your world we should just ignore it and be glad that one more person has the Lutheran icon next to their name?
In my world, I try to figure out where people are coming from and what exactly they mean before I jump on their backs and start beating them with the Red Hymnal.

Cheers,

Kepler

[DaRev]

And that applies to us because we can choose to remain in sin and reject God because we do not want to belive that there is a being more powerful then we OR its because we like sin too much.

Like a person in prison could reject a pardon from the governer either A because they think the governor is a jerk and they don't want to take his gift. Or B because they like being in prison.



Once I understand what is being said I find I agree with most of it. However the terminology is new to me as has been pointed out. Like I said I've read Luther but what I read from Luther seemed to say that God choose some people and not others and I was wondering how that is different from calvanism.

This is again like my life preserver analogy. God tosses out a life preserver and we choose to grab on or not. Well of course if we choose to grab on it was the life preserver (Christ) who saved us, because we didn't save ourselves. However I would use the terminology of accepting Christ because I choose to grab on.

The only difference is in this is that God does not throw the life preserver to people he knows will not grab onto it. Its a waste

That's not true. Have you read anything I posted about this subject? Where do you get the idea that God does not "throw the preserver" to those He "knows" will reject it? That contradicts Scripture.

It's not that God tosses us a life preserver for us to decide on. When we fall off the boat God has already put the preserver on us because He knows we can't do it oursleves. We can either acknowledge that we ahve the preserver, or we can actively take it off.

We cannot "accept" or "choose" what we already possess.

[Luther073082]

That's not true. Have you read anything I posted about this subject? Where do you get the idea that God does not "throw the preserver" to those He "knows" will reject it? That contradicts Scripture.

It's not that God tosses us a life preserver for us to decide on. When we fall off the boat God has already put the preserver on us because He knows we can't do it oursleves. We can either acknowledge that we ahve the preserver, or we can actively take it off.

We cannot "accept" or "choose" what we already possess.

And we take it off by rejecting Christ?j

Would that not be extended further to mean that in order to go to Hell we must explicitly reject Christ as Lord and Savior?

Edit: And please calm down I have been reading what you are saying but I'm trying to come to a full understand of it and I obviously havn't grasped it yet. I learn better with analogies so that helps.

[synger]

For all their emphasis on the right use of words, this is one that nearly all Lutherans screw up: they use the word "Reformed" to refer to all other evangelical groups that aren't Lutheran. IOW, they call Methodists, Baptists, Pentecostals, Charimatics, EV Free, non-denominationals, Presbyterians, all of them "Reformed". This is patently wrong. Of that list, ONLY Presbyterians are "Reformed".

So, here's a little lesson for you, and you have my permission to use this on anyone that you hear misuse it in the future. ONLY those denominations which base their theology on John Calvin and his heirs (Presbyterians, Christian Reformed, some Anglicans) are "Reformed". ANYONE who refers to non-Calvinistic church bodies as "reformed" is to be laughed at unceasingly until they mend their ways. All those other church bodies may be referred to as "Arminian" or mainstream evangelical, or feel free to use another word.


As a side note, there's a pretty large Reformed Baptist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Baptist) tradition, too. They are four- or five-point Calvinists, but insist on credo-baptism. They usually trace their thought back to a Baptist confession from the 1600s (I forget the name of it, but I remember studying it). However, it's not a "denomination"like Methodist or Anglican. Like the "some Anglicans" listed above, "some Baptists" believe and teach Reformed soteriology.

I think the Reformed Anglicans also have a confession from around that time period. Calvinists have a boatload of confessions and catechisms. Maybe it was the time period -- that's when most of the Lutheran ones were written, too.

Anyway, you usually can't tell whether a Baptist church teaches Calvinist or Arminian soteriology until you hear some sermons or talk to the minister. It's not always out there on the sign (kinda like Lutheran churches don't always have their synod on their sign).

[KEPLER]

As a side note, there's a pretty large Reformed Baptist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Baptist) tradition, too. They are four- or five-point Calvinists, but insist on credo-baptism. They usually trace their thought back to a Baptist confession from the 1600s (I forget the name of it, but I remember studying it). However, it's not a "denomination"like Methodist or Anglican. Like the "some Anglicans" listed above, "some Baptists" believe and teach Reformed soteriology.

I think the Reformed Anglicans also have a confession from around that time period. Calvinists have a boatload of confessions and catechisms. Maybe it was the time period -- that's when most of the Lutheran ones were written, too.

Anyway, you usually can't tell whether a Baptist church teaches Calvinist or Arminian soteriology until you hear some sermons or talk to the minister. It's not always out there on the sign (kinda like Lutheran churches don't always have their synod on their sign).
This is most certainly true! I was painting with broad strokes while accusing others of doing the same. Heh. :o:sorry:

***slaps his own hand***

[KEPLER]

That's not true. Have you read anything I posted about this subject? Where do you get the idea that God does not "throw the preserver" to those He "knows" will reject it? That contradicts Scripture.

It's not that God tosses us a life preserver for us to decide on. When we fall off the boat God has already put the preserver on us because He knows we can't do it oursleves. We can either acknowledge that we ahve the preserver, or we can actively take it off.

We cannot "accept" or "choose" what we already possess.
Take a deep breath, Rev. 1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9...10

He's listening! ;)

Truly, this is one of the hardest concepts in Lutheran doctrine to get into one's head. It's hard for those of us who accept it to remember that!

[LilLamb219]

So they don't belive in Christ because they don't want to?

In other words its too hard for them to belive there is freedom from the sin?

They don't believe because they reject.

[QuiltAngel]

Edit: And please calm down I have been reading what you are saying but I'm trying to come to a full understand of it and I obviously havn't grasped it yet. I learn better with analogies so that helps.

Was this necessary in the public forum? If you think someone is not talking with you in a calm manner, one should take that to PM's. Here again, someone being calm is relative, what one thinks is calm is not calm to another.

I only put this in the public forum since it was in the public forum to begin with.

A simple, I leran better with analogies would have sufficed.

[DaRev]

And we take it off by rejecting Christ?j

Would that not be extended further to mean that in order to go to Hell we must explicitly reject Christ as Lord and Savior?

Exactly!

Our salvation is an active work of God alone. Our damnation is an active work of ouselves alone.

I was once teaching a high school Sunday school class while in seminary, and I asked them a question. I said "Given todays world and the influences and peer pressures that we all face, what is easier for us, to go to heaven or to go to hell?" Almost every one of them said "going to hell is easier because it's too easy to fall into sinfulness."

I then had one of the kids come up front and I placed a Bible in her hands. I then asked the class "What does she have to do right now in order to possess this Bible?" After they thought for a minute, they decided that she didn't have to do anything to possess it because she already had it in her hands, which is true. I then asked, "Then in regards to her possessing it, what can she do?" and they said "she can drop it."

I then instructed her to drop it, at which time I immediately picked it up and put it back in her hands. I then asked, "Right now, what does she have to do to get this back in her hands?" They said, "Nothing because you put you there for her."

I then instructed her to drop it again and then try to not let me put it back into her hands. She dropped it and I tried to force it into her hands. She clenched her fists and I tried to pry them open. I ended up chasing her around the room. She ran and dodged and hid and did a lot to try to keep me from putting that Bible back into her hands.

After that I had her sit down and I explained that our salvation is like that Bible in our hands. God put it there. We didn't have to ask for it or accept it or or work for it in any way. God put it there and we already possess it. When we sin, it's like dropping that Bible. But Jesus is right there to put it back into our hands when we repent. We don't need to ask for it back, He places it there for us.

Thus our salvation is already ours. Our going to heaven is because of the work that Jesus did and continues to do for us through the Holy Spirit. Our going to hell is because we are actively rejecting the work of Christ and the Spirit. I said to them "How much work and effort was there for her to keep me from putting that Bible back into her hands?"

The point being that our salvation is God's effort done for us. Our damnation is solely our own effort. After this little lesson I asked them again, "What is easier, going to heaven or going to hell?" And they concluded that going to heaven was easier because the work is done for us. Going to hell is a full time job on our part.

[KEPLER]

Exactly!

Our salvation is an active work of God alone. Our damnation is an active work of ouselves alone.

I was once teaching a high school Sunday school class while in seminary, and I asked them a question. I said "Given todays world and the influences and peer pressures that we all face, what is easier for us, to go to heaven or to go to hell?" Almost every one of them said "going to hell is easier because it's too easy to fall into sinfulness."

I then had one of the kids come up front and I placed a Bible in her hands. I then asked the class "What does she have to do right now in order to possess this Bible?" After they thought for a minute, they decided that she didn't have to do anything to possess it because she already had it in her hands, which is true. I then asked, "Then in regards to her possessing it, what can she do?" and they said "she can drop it."

I then instructed her to drop it, at which time I immediately picked it up and put it back in her hands. I then asked, "Right now, what does she have to do to get this back in her hands?" They said, "Nothing because you put you there for her."

I then instructed her to drop it again and then try to not let me put it back into her hands. She dropped it and I tried to force it into her hands. She clenched her fists and I tried to pry them open. I ended up chasing her around the room. She ran and dodged and hid and did a lot to try to keep me from putting that Bible back into her hands.

After that I had her sit down and I explained that our salvation is like that Bible in our hands. God put it there. We didn't have to ask for it or accept it or or work for it in any way. God put it there and we already possess it. When we sin, it's like dropping that Bible. But Jesus is right there to put it back into our hands when we repent. We don't need to ask for it back, He places it there for us.

Thus our salvation is already ours. Our going to heaven is because of the work that Jesus did and continues to do for us through the Holy Spirit. Our going to hell is because we are actively rejecting the work of Christ and the Spirit. I said to them "How much work and effort was there for her to keep me from putting that Bible back into her hands?"

The point being that our salvation is God's effort done for us. Our damnation is solely our own effort. After this little lesson I asked them again, "What is easier, going to heaven or going to hell?" And they concluded that going to heaven was easier because the work is done for us. Going to hell is a full time job on our part.
NIIIIIICE!!!! :thumbsup: :amen:

[DaRev]

Was this necessary in the public forum? If you think someone is not talking with you in a calm manner, one should take that to PM's. Here again, someone being calm is relative, what one thinks is calm is not calm to another.

I only put this in the public forum since it was in the public forum to begin with.

A simple, I leran better with analogies would have sufficed.

Not a problem for me, Quilty. I may not have been succinct in my explanations to him. It's more of a frustration at myself than at him.

[Luther073082]

Ok now I understand. . .

We basically have to fight against God's grace in order to go to hell.

The only thing is accept Christ still applies because it means "I stopped fighting"

So then would this apply to children too small to understand the word and those who have not heard the word. . . Can they activily reject what they may not understand?

Or does that start to get into the "We can't know for sure" territory.

Edit: By "have not heard" I mean as it applies to people who have not actually had the opprotunity, not people who just say "I don't want to listen"

[LilLamb219]

We don't know for certain which children reject, but yet, children can reject faith as well. Which brings us to that discussion of babies and baptism, we assume they're holding the faith, but we ultimately do not know, we just trust that God doesn't give up as Da Rev illustrated :)

[DaRev]

Ok now I understand. . .

We basically have to fight against God's grace in order to go to hell.

Yes. It's a full time job on our part because God never stops loving us.

The only thing is accept Christ still applies because it means "I stopped fighting"

We don't use the word "accept" because it is an action verb that suggests that it is a work that we do towards our salvation. We rather use passive terms to describe this, such as "acknowledge" or "realize". It helps describe that the "action" is being done to us rather than by us.

So then would this apply to children too small to understand the word and those who have not heard the word. . . Can they activily reject what they may not understand?

Original sin is still enough to damn anyone. And sin need not be a consicous effort. We are guilty of sins that we may not even be aware we are committing. In one of the Lutheran Confession and Absolution rites we ask God to forgive those sins "of which we are unaware but known only to You."

Children and infants can still hear the word and receive the gift of faith and salvation. Again, comprehension and understanding are actions that salvation is not dependent on. The Scriptures do tell us that children and infants can and do have faith. This we leave up to God.

[Luther073082]

We don't know for certain which children reject, but yet, children can reject faith as well. Which brings us to that discussion of babies and baptism, we assume they're holding the faith, but we ultimately do not know, we just trust that God doesn't give up as Da Rev illustrated :)

If God gave up would he still be God? I doubt it.

[BigNorsk]

The key words in the article you quoted are "the Mass in the Papacy". This article is referring to the Roman Catholic version of the Mass which Luther rejected. But in Augustana XXIV is clearly states "Falsely are our churches accused of abolishing the Mass; for the Mass is retained among us, and celebrated with the highest reverence." Luther's objections were based upon parts of the papal Mass that were unScriptural and the abuses of the Mass in the Church of the time.

So, to answer your question: In regards to the words of Luther in the Smalcald articles in the proper context in which they are written, yes I agree with Luther's words. I also agree with the Augustana XXIV. They are not contradictory at all. When read in their proper contexts, they are basically saying the same thing.

Rev

You may be surprised but I agree with you.

Now the thing is, if one uses the term Mass, should one also be careful to distinguish it from the Mass of the Papacy like the Confessions do?

I would say yes.

That's why I would recommend being careful about using the word. I don't know about other places but I do know in this part of the world, if I say Mass, it is going to be taken as what the Roman Catholics teach. I just think it is confusing if I invite someone to our Mass, a most wonderful thing, and warn them of the Mass of the Catholics. If I only spoke to established Lutherans, it wouldn't be a big deal.

Marv

[LilLamb219]

I think that the word "accept" as it is used today by evangelicals is much more active word than it was back in Luther's day. If someone were to ask Luther if he accepted that Christ died on the cross for him, of course he'd say yes. But if someone of today were to ask, it's a suspicious word because we don't know which mindset is being referred to. Hope that's not too confusing.

[Luther073082]

Rev> The problem is while here I understand what you mean about correcting theology. In the real world most people don't care about having absolutly correct theology they care about the spirit of Christ within them.

I'd say its not a concept that many people understand either. But IMO I don't think our job is to make everyone understand perfect doctrine or theology rather then make them to realize the grace of God.

I'm surprised though that you taught this in your Sunday school class. I taught 8th grade last year and basically all we taught was a class on basic biblical concepts.

It actually disappoints me at how little knowledge the students come in understanding. From my understanding the 6th grade teachers have to go over the difference between the OT and the NT.

I think that the word "accept" as it is used today by evangelicals is much more active word than it was back in Luther's day. If someone were to ask Luther if he accepted that Christ died on the cross for him, of course he'd say yes. But if someone of today were to ask, it's a suspicious word because we don't know which mindset is being referred to. Hope that's not too confusing.

No I understand. And I understood before this that it was by the help of the Holy Spirit I was kept in true faith. What I didn't understand was the concept that the in order to go to hell we actually have to push Christ away from us.

[LilLamb219]

But if people DO understand what the doctrine is, they have a better understanding of God's grace.

[Luther073082]

But if people DO understand what the doctrine is, they have a better understanding of God's grace.

True but I think pushing too much doctrine down a person's throat tends to push them away more then bring them in.

The only way we can teach doctrine is if a person wants to learn doctrine.

Personally I think our church should do a better job of teaching doctrine because I know a lot of my other Sunday school teachers don't understand most of the Lutheran doctrines. It distrubs me that the woman I taught with did not have a proper understanding of "real presence" in communion. Along with other people's lack of understanding I've heard within my church.

I think its more or less a balance in teaching but not getting so complex that people's minds are fried and they go elsewhere.

[LilLamb219]

Does your pastor have an adult inquirer's class? It's also good as a brush up on what Lutherans believe and from time to time older Lutherans go to the class for a refresher.

Also, encouraging a Pastor led bible study helps in catechesis as well.

[KEPLER]

Evanjelly churches are like toddlers: they only want to eat what's bad for them. Doctrine is health food. And once you take a hankerin' to it, all you want is more.

BTW, Luther######, are you feelin' the luuuuuv yet?;)

K

[Protoevangel]

But if people DO understand what the doctrine is, they have a better understanding of God's grace.
And proper understanding of doctrine is our best defense against the Arians (JWs), Henotheists (Mormons), and other outright heretical groups.

[KEPLER]

And proper understanding of doctrine is our best defense against the Arians (JWs), Henotheists (Mormons), and other outright heretical groups.
Henotheist??!! Holy carp, I've never hard that one before! Give a definition, please?

And BTW, nice to see ya, Dan, long time no type!

K

[Protoevangel]

Henotheist??!! Holy carp, I've never hard that one before! Give a definition, please?

And BTW, nice to see ya, Dan, long time no type!

K
Henotheism was coined by Max Müller, I just think the term works better than most to peg the stated beliefs of the LDS. It means devotion to a single "God" while accepting the existence of other gods. It is basically "monotheis