Question for you in LCMS...

[LutheranChick]

I found this link in another thread
http://www.lcms.org/pages/rpage.asp?NavID=12837

I was wondering - what is it that the LCMS hopes to accomplish by being involved in this dialog? I can't see how there could ever be an agreement on doctrine - so, what is the point? Just curious.

[jcj3803]

I found this link in another thread
http://www.lcms.org/pages/rpage.asp?NavID=12837

I was wondering - what is it that the LCMS hopes to accomplish by being involved in this dialog? I can't see how there could ever be an agreement on doctrine - so, what is the point? Just curious.
Anybody's guess, but dialog can't hurt. I mean if nothing else, you at least know your "enemy". And if some common ground is found, that's a good thing.

[DaRev]

I found this link in another thread
http://www.lcms.org/pages/rpage.asp?NavID=12837

I was wondering - what is it that the LCMS hopes to accomplish by being involved in this dialog? I can't see how there could ever be an agreement on doctrine - so, what is the point? Just curious.

It's not an attempt at reconciling doctrine or reaching agreements. It's always good to know what the others are thinking and saying so we can adequately counter and correct when necessary. Besides, do we really want the Roman Catholic Church to think that all Lutherans are like the ELCA?

[LutheranChick]

So it's really more of a position of observation and educating the RCC of the varying Lutheran stances, rather than actually trying to find something to agree on - this makes sense.

[synger]

Well since from the article:

This was the fifth meeting in Round XI, which is addressing the topic of “The Hope of Eternal Life.” Selected in 2004, that topic has to do with issues such as purgatory, indulgences, and masses and prayers for the dead.

I can't see much in there that they'd agree on. *chuckles*

But it's interesting to know they're talking.

[Radiata]

I think that this issue has been talked about for decades and even centuries. What is the point of continuing on a discussion that has been properly discussed time and time again. Is that the question that you are asking? Although finding common ground is necessary for building relations, what other good could it accomplish? We already know that there will not be any agreements with currently existing controversies.

Here's a reason, it provides jobs?

[RadMan]

I think that this issue has been talked about for decades and even centuries. What is the point of continuing on a discussion that has been properly discussed time and time again. Is that the question that you are asking? Although finding common ground is necessary for building relations, what other good could it accomplish? We already know that there will not be any agreements with currently existing controversies.

Here's a reason, it provides jobs?I agree. All it does is advance the idea, which some clergy already have, that it might be "interesting" to look into reconciliation by accepting premises of RCC/EO thinking. Haven't we already lost enough clergy to Catholicism? "Sleeping with the enemy" is like "lying down with dogs and raising up with fleas" syndrome.

[LutheranChick]

I think that this issue has been talked about for decades and even centuries. What is the point of continuing on a discussion that has been properly discussed time and time again. Is that the question that you are asking? Although finding common ground is necessary for building relations, what other good could it accomplish? We already know that there will not be any agreements with currently existing controversies.

Here's a reason, it provides jobs?

Yes, that was pretty much my thoughts, also. I guess knowing what the ELCA and RCC are discussing may have some merit - but seeing as there will never be any doctrinal agreement between the confessional Lutheran groups and the RCC, I just couldn't see the point.

[DaRev]

I think it's healthy that we are in dialogue with the RCC if for no other reason than to assure that the ELCA is not the sole source of information regarding what Lutherans hold, teach, and confess. God help us if that were to be the case.

[Edial]

..."Sleeping with the enemy" is like "lying down with dogs and raising up with fleas" syndrome.
:D :) ... (quietly slinking away into his ELCA cell).

[Edial]

I think it's healthy that we are in dialogue with the RCC if for no other reason than to assure that the ELCA is not the sole source of information regarding what Lutherans hold, teach, and confess. God help us if that were to be the case.
2 questions.

Why should we care what the RCC thinks of us?
I hope we are not seeking their approval.

Does LCMS has dialogues with other denominations, such as Baptists?
If no, why not?
Lutherans and Baptists are much closer than RCC concerning the theology of salvation.

(I think I'm allowed to ask questions here). :)

Thanks, :)
Ed

[Radiata]

2 questions.

Why should we care what the RCC thinks of us?
I hope we are not seeking their approval.

Does LCMS has dialogues with other denominations, such as Baptists?
If no, why not?
Lutherans and Baptists are much closer than RCC concerning the theology of salvation.

(I think I'm allowed to ask questions here). :)

Thanks, :)
Ed
Approval is not a bad thing, so long as that is not your sole objective. I can't think of any religious group anywhere that operates on that level.

[DaRev]

Lutherans and Baptists are much closer than RCC concerning the theology of salvation.

Actually, the Baptists and the Roman Catholics are big into works righteousness, which makes them closer concerning salvation than either to Lutherans.

[Edial]

Actually, the Baptists and the Roman Catholics are big into works righteousness, which makes them closer concerning salvation than either to Lutherans.
Why do you say that?
I came from a Baptist background and clearly do not see that.
Don't they have the solas as their official stance, as the Lutherans do?

And doesn't the RCC condemn the ones that have the solas?

[DaRev]

Don't the Baptists require one to "choose" to "accept" Jesus? Don't they have to decide to be baptized? The one's I know do.

[Edial]

Don't the Baptists require one to "choose" to "accept" Jesus? Don't they have to decide to be baptized? The one's I know do.
How do you handle then the many examples in the Bible when people want to get baptized? Should we stop them?

How do you handle the verse where it states that if one confesses with his mouth and believes in his heart that Jesus is Lord one will be saved? Should we not allow it?

Yet the fact does remain, the RCC condemns all that have the solas.
And the Baptists and the Lutherans have the same solas.

Aren't these the primary reason Martin Luther left RCC?

Why have dialogue with the ones that condemn us and ignore the ones that agree with us on this paramount issue yet disagree on lesser ones?
Besides, there is a movement among some Baptists that the elements of the communion are not necessarily symbolic.
Some Baptists also feel uncomfortable that they cannot baptize their infants.
Isn't this a fertile ground for a dialogue?

If Martin Luther considered the RCC the Antichrist, why should we care what they think of us?

Thanks,
Ed

[RadMan]

How do you handle then the many examples in the Bible when people want to get baptized? Should we stop them?

How do you handle the verse where it states that if one confesses with his mouth and believes in his heart that Jesus is Lord one will be saved? Should we not allow it?

Yet the fact does remain, the RCC condemns all that have the solas.
And the Baptists and the Lutherans have the same solas.

Aren't these the primary reason Martin Luther left RCC?

Why have dialogue with the ones that condemn us and ignore the ones that agree with us on this paramount issue yet disagree on lesser ones?
Besides, there is a movement among some Baptists that the elements of the communion are not necessarily symbolic.
Some Baptists also feel uncomfortable that they cannot baptize their infants.
Isn't this a fertile ground for a dialogue?

If Martin Luther considered the RCC the Antichrist, why should we care what they think of us?

Thanks,
EdI read the newer SBC president Paul Pressler has guided them back to their orthodox roots? How orthodox? The old Baptist orthodox?

[DaSeminarian]

Why do you say that?
I came from a Baptist background and clearly do not see that.
Don't they have the solas as their official stance, as the Lutherans do?

And doesn't the RCC condemn the ones that have the solas?

Having been in the Baptist church for approximately 15 years I can attest to the decision theology that they practice. Billy Graham calls his program "Hour of Decision" Billy Graham is Baptist.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

It would seem that since the very beginning of the Reformation dialogue was a very important part the whole process.

Didn't Fr. Martin post his 95 theses to spawn discussion regarding contentious issues?

When we study Luther"s Works, and those of other great reformers there were always dialogues going on between differing positions between both Catholic and Protestant and Protestant and Protestant alike.

Was not the Augsburg Confession, and then the Apiology presented and discussed to try and maintain unity within God's Church?

While I could not accept unity or even partial fellowship with Rome at this time, I do also realize that we Confessional Lutherans do share a lot of common ground with Rome. What commonality that we do share could serve us all well when we consider all of the current opponents to Christianity of all stripes.
:preach:

Mark

[DaSeminarian]

It would seem that since the very beginning of the Reformation dialogue was a very important part the whole process.

Didn't Fr. Martin post his 95 theses to spawn discussion regarding contentious issues?

When we study Luther"s Works, and those of other great reformers there were always dialogues going on between differing positions between both Catholic and Protestant and Protestant and Protestant alike.

Was not the Augsburg Confession, and then the Apiology presented and discussed to try and maintain unity within God's Church?

While I could not accept unity or even partial fellowship with Rome at this time, I do also realize that we Confessional Lutherans do share a lot of common ground with Rome. What commonality that we do share could serve us all well when we consider all of the current opponents to Christianity of all stripes.
:preach:

Mark

Quite the opposite actually. Very few would have ever thought to challenge the status quo of the Roman Church in the 16th century. Luther was trying to stir up a debate on the issues he thought were a bit questionable and an apparent abuse of power by the Pope and bishops. The Church did not see it this way with Luther and decided to use him as an example of what should not be done. They didn't want people and even more specifically their own clergy telling them they were wrong.

They asked him to recant rather than to explain his ideas and debate their efficacy. When he wouldn't recant they branded him an outlaw.

[vle045]

Don't the Baptists require one to "choose" to "accept" Jesus? Don't they have to decide to be baptized? The one's I know do.
I am confused... isn't that what "free will" is all about? We all have to make the choice, right?

What am I missing?

[DaRev]

I am confused... isn't that what "free will" is all about? We all have to make the choice, right?

What am I missing?

Mankind has no "free will" in spiritual matters. We are all born sinful and in a state of rebellion against God. If it were left to us, we would all reject God and His gift of salvation.

We do not choose God because our sinful nature prevents us from being able to choose Him. Like Jesus said, "You did not choose Me, I chose you."

We can do nothing toward our salvation. It has all been done by God through Christ. It is for us only to believe, and even our belief is given to us by God.

Since our sinful nature prevents us from "choosing' or "accepting" Christ, God has given Him to us as a gift as well as the gift of faith in order to believe. The only "choice" we have is to reject His gifts, to not believe.

Our salvation and faith in Christ is totally the work of God done to us and for us. Our damnation is totally our own work.

[Edial]

I just read the Sticky this morning.
Being away for some time I had an incorrect impression I could present my points here in a form of a question.
I do not know where I got this idea from.
Maybe from a gameshow. :)

It flatly states I cannot debate here.

Sorry about that.
I'll stop.

Ed

[Eikon]

Mankind has no "free will" in spiritual matters. We are all born sinful and in a state of rebellion against God. If it were left to us, we would all reject God and His gift of salvation.

We do not choose God because our sinful nature prevents us from being able to choose Him. Like Jesus said, "You did not choose Me, I chose you."

We can do nothing toward our salvation. It has all been done by God through Christ. It is for us only to believe, and even our belief is given to us by God.

Since our sinful nature prevents us from "choosing' or "accepting" Christ, God has given Him to us as a gift as well as the gift of faith in order to believe. The only "choice" we have is to reject His gifts, to not believe.

Our salvation and faith in Christ is totally the work of God done to us and for us. Our damnation is totally our own work.

So then what you are saying here is that we do nothing in regards to our salvation, it is all done by God? And that people coming into the fold of the church is just them answering the call that was there all along, just they had ignored it?

[DaRev]

So then what you are saying here is that we do nothing in regards to our salvation, it is all done by God? And that people coming into the fold of the church is just them answering the call that was there all along, just they had ignored it?

We contribute nothing to our salvation. It is totally and wholly God's doing.

As St. Paul writes, "Faith comes by hearing." It's not that they ignored it, it's that they hadn't yet heard it. "How can they believe in One of whom they have never heard?"

It's like if you buy a Christmas gift for someone. Before you give it to them, while it's still in your possession, who does it belong to? It belongs to the person you bought it for, they are just not aware of it until you present it to them.
The gift of our salvation is like this. Jesus paid for it. It belongs to us all. But there is a point where this gift is presented to us through the proclamation of the Gospel. Some of us grow up hearing and knowing that this gift is ours. Others do not hear the Gospel, do not have this gift presented to them, until later in life. But the fact remains, it belongs to all because Christ died for all, even though there are still many who don't know it yet because they haven't been presented with it yet.

The preaching of the Gospel, along with the Sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper, are the means by which the Spirit enlightens us with His gift of faith.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Mankind has no "free will" in spiritual matters. We are all born sinful and in a state of rebellion against God. If it were left to us, we would all reject God and His gift of salvation.

We do not choose God because our sinful nature prevents us from being able to choose Him. Like Jesus said, "You did not choose Me, I chose you."

We can do nothing toward our salvation. It has all been done by God through Christ. It is for us only to believe, and even our belief is given to us by God.

Since our sinful nature prevents us from "choosing' or "accepting" Christ, God has given Him to us as a gift as well as the gift of faith in order to believe. The only "choice" we have is to reject His gifts, to not believe.

Our salvation and faith in Christ is totally the work of God done to us and for us. Our damnation is totally our own work.

Sorry Rev, but I disagree (somewhat). Man has a kind of 1/2 free will. We certainly have no ability to choose or accept Christ. We do however have "free will" to reject Christ, and defy God. This is the same "free will" that ended up with Lucifer and his followers getting booted out of Heaven. It is also the same free will that got Adam and Eve (and the rest of us) into trouble.

[LilLamb219]

If man's fallen tendency is to "reject", then the will is not free, is it?

[MarkRohfrietsch]

If man's fallen tendency is to "reject", then the will is not free, is it?

I understand your point, but when one is in a state of grace does it not take a conscious sinful act of defiance to fall from grace? Otherwise we would not be able to fall. I do pray that this ability to defy God is shed along with our mortal bodies before we get to Heaven.
:crossrc:

[DaRev]

We have no "free will" in spiritual matters. Our will is bound to our sinful nature. Read Luther's "On the Bondage of the Will."