Orthodox vs. Heterodox

[ChiRho]

The Distinction Between Orthodox & Heterodox Churches
by Dr. Franz Pieper

Thesis III

It is, therefore, not a matter of indifference which church group a Christian joins; but he has God's earnest command strictly to distinguish between orthodox and heterodox churches, and, avoiding all church fellowship with the heterodox, to adhere only to the orthodox Church.

If, as we have seen in the Second Thesis, it is true that God wants only orthodox churches, and if the existence of heterodox churches is to be traced back to Divine permission only, then, as stated now in the Third Thesis, it is "not a matter of indifference which church group a Christian joins."

Many Christians suppose that it makes no difference which church group a Christian joins, and they act accordingly. When they come to a place where any kind of Protestant church is found, they join it as members. There are people who were successively Reformed, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, depending upon the place where they lived. And we should not be surprised when this happens among the sects, for they are not certain about their distinctive doctrines, because they are not grounded in God's Word.

But even such who want to be Lutherans, and who confess that the doctrine which they have learned from the Lutheran Catechism is the correct one, often have few misgivings about joining heterodox congregations. They, therefore, also act accordingly, as though it makes little difference to which church group a Christian belongs. But this is altogether wrong. Only then would this be a matter of indifference if, before God, there were no difference between orthodox and heterodox churches. But, now, there is a great difference, as we have seen in our Second Thesis, — a difference so great that God wants only the orthodox Church, and, on the other hand, in His Word clearly condemns heterodox churches. Therefore, it is the duty of every Christian who wants to be guided by God's Word alone to distinguish strictly between orthodox and heterodox churches. Before he joins a church group, he must answer the question: Is this church orthodox or not?

God also expressly requires that of Christians. "Beloved," we read in I John 4:1, "believe not every spirit, but try the spirits; whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." And the Lord Jesus exhorts all Christians (Matt. 7:15): "Beware of false prophets." So, those Christians who do not want to distinguish between true and false prophets, and, consequently, also not between orthodox and heterodox churches, are disobedient to an express command of God.

In our day, people either do not make this distinction at all, or at least not in the right manner. They not only fail to declare it the Christian's duty to distinguish between orthodox and heterodox church bodies, but they even declare it to be a Christian virtue when people pay no attention to the doctrinal differences. Yes, they call it presumptuous when a church body maintains that in all articles of Christian faith it has the revealed truth of God's Word. Thus, we are ridiculed in the General Synod, yes, even in the Council, because we make a strict distinction between orthodox and heterodox churches. The sectarians, indeed, also speak of the "orthodox," that is, right-teaching preachers and church bodies. These, however, are not people who adhere to all doctrines of the Christian faith, but such who, in the general falling away, at least still confess a few important doctrines. They call such church bodies "orthodox," which perhaps still believe that the Holy Bible is God's Word, and that Christ is God's Son; also that through conversion man comes to God, and through faith in Christ can be saved, even though they at the same time deny other doctrines clearly revealed in God's Word. But that can never be called the right manner of distinguishing between orthodox and heterodox church bodies. Whoever judges on the basis of God's Word can call only those teachers and church bodies orthodox which are obedient to God's command, adding nothing to His Word and taking nothing away from it.

If you therefore ask on what basis a Christian must distinguish between heterodox and orthodox churches, the answer is: On the basis of beliefs, on the basis of doctrine. Only on that basis can a true judgment be reached; not on the basis that outwardly a Christian life appears to prevail in a congregation or that the minister gives the impression of being a pious man. That can all be sheep's clothing which conceals the errorist, as Christ the Lord says in Matt. 7:15: "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing." Moreover, you cannot judge on the basis that a man appeals to Scripture and quotes Scripture; but Christians must examine whether the doctrine of Scripture is really also being taught. The devil, too, in the temptation of Christ, quoted Scripture.

Yes, Christians should not even be influenced by signs and wonders, for those wonders may likewise be only seeming wonders, deception, and Satanic delusion. Already in the Old Testament, God called the attention of His believers to this. In the passage already quoted, Deut. 13:1-3, it is stated: "If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or wonder, and the sign or wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul." This is a very powerful passage to show that in judging church bodies and teachers we should look alone at the doctrine to see whether they teach God's Word purely and clearly. Even signs and wonders are not infallible distinguishing marks. These can look outwardly like wonders, but in reality be deception, or an effect produced by the devil. Signs and wonders should influence us only then when they are accompanied by the correct doctrine. If false doctrine is present, we should call him who presents it a false prophet, even if he would show us things that are ever so astounding. The Pope's coming, according to 2 Thessalonians 2, is after the working of Satan with all kinds of lying power and signs and wonders. Of the Last Times, Christ the Lord says, Mat.24:24: "There shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." Accordingly, the Christians have the duty on the basis of doctrine to distinguish between orthodox and heterodox churches.

But can they do this? Certainly! For Christ the Lord tells them to do this, and this at the same time implies that by God's grace they can do it. Many suppose that only pastors are in a position to distinguish between orthodox and heterodox churches. But this is altogether wrong. Precisely all Christians, and not only the pastors, are exhorted by Christ the Lord, in Matt. 7:15: "Beware of false prophets." And John says: "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1); this passage is likewise addressed to all Christians alike. Christ the Lord has so arranged it, that all His dear Christians, the unlearned as well as the learned, can distinguish between truth and falsehood in spiritual things. He has revealed all doctrines in perfectly clear passages, in passages which can be understood by the unlearned as well as the learned. The Holy Scriptures are such a testimony, that makes wise also the simple (Psalm 19:7). When, therefore, a Christian simply holds to the Word of Scripture, then he can very well distinguish between truth and error.

That the Christians sometimes are confused and imagine that they do not know which is the true doctrine, is due to the fact, that they lose sight of the Word of Scripture, that they want to judge this matter with their blind reason, and not with God's Word, which refutes all errors as soon as it is brought into the discussion. Thus, for example, there once was a dispute in a Methodistic gathering concerning perfect sanctification of a Christian already in this life. Most of them claimed that a Christian, already here on earth, can be entirely without sin. Then, one man arose and said that he had committed no sin for years! Another arose and, instead of making a long reply, simply quoted 1 John 1:8: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." By this one passage all were silenced. Before the eyes of all, the error was condemned by the clear Word of God. And so it is with respect to every doctrine.

The Christian who knows his Small Lutheran Catechism can defend himself with this knowledge against all errors, for the fundamental articles of Christian doctrine are the very ones against which the errorists offend.

Gerhard writes: "As the Church differs from secular associations which are outside the Church through the preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments, so it also differs from heretical communions which are in the Church through the pure preaching of the Word and the correct administration of the Sacraments." (L. de ecclesia par. 131.)

We distinguish between erring churches, and the godless mass of people outside of the Church. The latter are those communions that, though they still call themselves churches, nevertheless no longer teach anything of the saving Gospel, or as our older teachers expressed it, have no essential parts of the revealed saving truth at all anymore. In such church bodies, insofar as their doctrine is concerned, nobody can come to saving faith. Such communions in our day are the Unitarian groups. These teach no Triune God. Consequently, they also do not teach that Jesus Christ is true God and as true God became man, to redeem mankind by His substitutionary life, suffering, and death. Consequently, nobody within this communion can come to faith in Christ as the Savior of sinners; accordingly, this group and similar ones no longer merit the name of "Christian fellowship." They are altogether outside of the Christian Church, as it is also confessed by our Church in the first article of the Apology to the Augsburg Confession. We do not place these wholly un-Christian groups on the same level with heterodox churches. In all these heterodox churches it is still confessed that Christ is God's Son, and that He died for the redemption of man, though indeed at the same time many errors are also being preached. But, nevertheless, souls can still come to faith in these churches. Now, we are not dealing here with the difference between the orthodox Church and the world, but with the difference between the orthodox and the heterodox Church, that is, between churches which confess the revealed truth in all articles of doctrine, and such churches which reject the truth and support error in a number of teachings.

CONTINUED ON NEXT POST...

[ChiRho]

Therefore a Christian can and should distinguish between orthodox and heterodox churches. He should then also act according to this knowledge. While avoiding all fellowship with the heterodox, he should adhere only to the orthodox Church. This God's Word declares in all passages which admonish the Christian not to listen to false prophets, but to flee from them. For by belonging to heterodox congregations you listen to their preachers, the false prophets, and thus do the very opposite of that which Christ has commanded regarding false teachers. The passages already quoted, therefore, belong here: Matt.7:15: "Beware of false prophets"; and 2 John 10,11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine" - the doctrine revealed in God's Word, the doctrine of Christ - "Receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed," namely, as a brother in the faith. That you should not become a member of a heterodox fellowship is set forth also in Acts 20:30,31. Here the Apostle says: "Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." And for that time he gives the warning: "Therefore watch and remember that by the space of three years, I ceased not to warn everyone night and day with tears," that is to say, abide in the true doctrine which in the last three years I have taught you with such great labor and care, and do not adhere to those who speak "perverse things."

Then, 2 Cor. 6:14-18 says most expressly: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Wherefore come Out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be My sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."

Objections have been raised against the use of this passage as proof that God has forbidden fellowship with heterodox churches. The objectors claim that this passage speaks of unbelievers, and not of erring believers. But erring churches are, to the extent that they err, also unbelieving. They are unbelieving with respect to quite a number of Bible passages. And to this they add the terrible sin, that on the basis of their errors they have established sectarian communions in the Christian Church. Thereby they split up Christendom and oppose, fight against, the orthodox Church. Word for word , the passage, 2 Cor. 6, applies to the erring churches insofar as they are such.

It says: "What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?" To preach false doctrine, and to believe false doctrine is the greatest wickedness there is, a sin against the First Commandment. Luther stresses this so frequently. He always repeats: "False doctrine is a sin against the First Commandment." Whoever sets aside God's Word, twists God's Word around, puts his own meaning into God's Word, he does not permit God to be his God, he acts unrighteously. God often says in His Word: "Thou shalt not steal." But just as clearly and even much oftener we find it said in Scripture: You shall not believe false doctrine, you shall not preach false doctrine, you shall not listen to false doctrine. Now, just as he is unrighteous who steals, contrary to God's command, so especially also is he unrighteous who, contrary to the equally clear command of God, preaches, accepts, or promotes false doctrine, and that in any amount whatever. When God says you must not steal, then you should not steal even a little bit. The same holds true in respect to hearing and preaching false doctrine. You already become a partaker of unrighteousness by spreading and advancing only one doctrinal error. The first part of Christian righteousness and Christian life is the trusting acceptance of the whole Word of God.

We read further: "What communion hath light with darkness?" But false doctrine is darkness, just as true, revealed doctrine is the light in this world. "What concord hath Christ with Belial?" All false doctrine is a work of the devil. It is lying in spiritual things against God. And the real father of this lying is the devil. Whoever supports false doctrine is doing the devil's work. "What agreement hath the temple of God with idols?" The Church is God's temple, and it is His temple for the very reason that God's Word is proclaimed therein. Insofar as man's doctrine, error, is preached in the Church, you teach the worship of a different god than the true one who has revealed Himself in Scripture. Yes, insofar as a different doctrine than God's Word is proclaimed in the Church, you really turn God's house into a temple of idols. That the coming out from among them, of which 2 Cor. 6 speaks, applies in particular to separation from the heterodox, is set forth in Rom. 16:17, where we read: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."

The objection is raised: "You yourselves admit that also in heterodox bodies there are still dear children of God, and yet by separating from these churches, you separate yourselves from these children of God; yes, you condemn them by avoiding these heterodox churches. In that case, isn't it better to practice fellowship with the heterodox?" First of all, we answer: No! It cannot be better, because God expressly forbids us to do this. Moreover, we do not even separate ourselves from the children of God among the sects, but from the sects as such. Rather, the sects separate these dear children of God from us. They hold those who belong to us — for children of God are determined to accept the whole Word of God — captive among themselves. So these believers must outwardly support the wicked cause of the sects while in their hearts they belong to us. These children of God would at once come over to an orthodox congregation if they were better informed. It is also for the benefit of the children of God among the heterodox that we refuse church fellowship to these churches. Thereby we are constantly reminding them that they are in the wrong camp. According to God's Word, Christians do not belong in the company of those who openly contradict some doctrines of Christ. Many a person for this reason also steps out of the wrong camp into the right one.

It must also by all means be held, that we do not cause any divisions in the Church when we avoid fellowship with the heterodox. According to Rom. 16:17, they cause divisions and offenses in the Church who teach doctrines besides the revealed truth. According to the Word of God, the situation is this: Whoever adheres to false teachers, and thereby strengthens their cause, cooperates in the division of the Church. But he that avoids false teachers and their followers, and practices no fellowship with them, is engaged in the holy work of preventing divisions within Christendom. But, sad to say, the devil has been successful here in falsifying the concepts and the language. The destroyers of unity are called the promoters thereof, and, on the other hand, the promoters of unity are called the destroyers thereof.

Now, what is included in avoiding all fellowship with the heterodox? It does not include that you avoid also all civil association with the heterodox. It also does not include that you should not occasionally, opportunely, speak with the heterodox about spiritual matters. We should rather do as St. Peter exhorts in 1 Peter 3:15-16: "Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear: having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ." From our association with them, the heterodox should also notice that we have no passion for quarreling and condemning, but that we are God-fearing, truth-loving, peaceful people who act as we do only because we respect God's Word. — By the Command of God, which forbids fellowship with the heterodox, everything is forbidden whereby we strengthen the evil work of the heterodox body.

Christians, therefore, should not become members of heterodox bodies, indeed, under no circumstances. If in a certain place no orthodox church is found, the Christian must be content with private, home worship, for God has nowhere given release from this word: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." Rom. 16:17. That divinely commanded avoiding of heterodox churches includes also this, that a Christian under no circumstances contribute to the building funds of sects, or even to the expenses of the Roman Church, for thereby he promotes heterodox churches. And a Christian should then, when he is approached for such a contribution, briefly and earnestly give the reason for refusing his support. He should openly state that according to God's Word he is obliged to reject the false doctrine which the heterodox church teaches and therefore cannot help to bring it into house and home. You should in such cases not brush off those who desire an offering, perhaps by saying that you have no money, etc. Then they think that you are merely too stingy to give them something. No, here is the opportunity frankly and openly to confess your faith.

The following testimonies were pointed to as a confirmation of what was set forth in Thesis III.

After the Apology makes the concession that also the Baptism performed by unbelieving pastors in the name of the Church is effective, it continues: "Impious teachers are to be deserted (are not to be received or heard) because they do not act any longer in the place of Christ, but are antichrists. And Christ says Matt. 7:15: Beware of false prophets. And Paul, Gal. 1:9: "If any man preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed. " (Trigl. p.243-5, par. 48.)

Smalcald Articles: "Paul commands that godless teachers should be avoided and execrated as cursed, Gal. 1,8; Titus 3,10. And 2 Cor. 6, 14 he says: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what communion hath light with darkness? To dissent from the agreement of so many nations and to be called schismatics is a grave matter. But divine authority commands all not to be allies and defenders of impiety and unjust cruelty." (Trigl. p.517, par. 41.)

Furthermore: "Because Paul, Gal. 1.7f., enjoins that bishops who teach and defend a godless doctrine and godless services should be regarded as accursed." Trigl. p.525, par. 72.)

Luther says: "Whoever knows that his pastor teaches Zwinglianism, should avoid him, and rather forego receiving the Sacrament all his life than to receive it from him, yes, rather also die and suffer all things." (Warning against Zwinglianism. XVII, 2440.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Franz August Otto Pieper was a Professor at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri from 1878-1931. During the years 1887-1931 he was President of the same. From 1899-1911 Dr. Pieper was also President of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod.
He most widely used work today is Christian Dogmatics, a 3-volume work (4 with index) covering all areas of Christian Doctrine from the Orthodox Lutheran viewpoint.

[Pacigoth13]

So, other than the LCMS, which churches are "orthodox"?

[Lotar]

WELS, LCC, ELS, ELCK, ect.

There's lots of them. All the ones that actually follow the Lutheran confessions. ;)

[Pacigoth13]

Oh... so not only is God only found in one religion, but God is also only found in the right denomination... but not only in the right denomination, but also in the right form/expression of that denomination? Wow, true Christianity must be an exclusive country club.

[Protoevangel]

Oh... so not only is God only found in one religion, but God is also only found in the right denomination... but not only in the right denomination, but also in the right form/expression of that denomination? Wow, true Christianity must be an exclusive country club.Hi Pacigoth13,

I think you may misunderstand orthodox.


Orthodox:
1. Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion.
2. Adhering to the Christian faith as expressed in the early Christian ecumenical creeds.

This does not mean that one is automatically cut off from God simply for not being orthodox. I certainly hope not anyway! ;)

[Lotar]

No, Christ is with all of those who have faith in Him, but the visible Church is only present where the Word is rightly taught and the sacraments properly administered. So the sects have many Christians within them, though they teach heresy. There is a right and there is a wrong, Christ promised to preserve His Church and He has, through Athanasius, Augustine, Luther, Chemnitz, etc., the faith has been preserved. If, and probably when, LCMS falls into error and heresy, another will rise up in it's place, for Christ has promised the gates of Hell will not previal.

[Pacigoth13]

And to that I would say that we are ALL heretics and that the idea that a sinful person and/or community ever fully "gets it" is simply arrogant. Both St. Paul and Luther realised this about themselves and that God only used them in grace and mercy. For all we know, "orthodox" may or may not be "orthodox". That there is "right" and "wrong" I am not going to deny, but that we can know the difference I will. No, Jesus as window into God is the only help we get in this life. The only God who helps us it the God who becomes like us...

[ChiRho]

[QUOTE=Pacigoth13]And to that I would say that we are ALL heretics and that the idea that a sinful person and/or community ever fully "gets it" is simply arrogant.

humble heretic?


Both St. Paul and Luther realised this about themselves and that God only used them in grace and mercy.

ok

For all we know, "orthodox" may or may not be "orthodox". That there is "right" and "wrong" I am not going to deny, but that we can know the difference I will.

I think you are forgetting about Holy Scripture. We do have a ever-faithful authority to judge both, true orthodoxy and the difference between right and wrong. I wonder why some argue so intensely for confusion?

No, Jesus as window into God is the only help we get in this life. The only God who helps us it the God who becomes like us...

My simple response....how do you know this?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[Pacigoth13]

Through faith and history. One cannot study the historical Jesus without being confronted with matters of faith and one cannot trust the Christ of faith with no understanding of the Jesus story. So, the two are inseparable.

Now, rewind in my past a few years and I am a freshman in college. I bring to college a past of abuse, neglect and things that happened to me that I do not want to remember, let alone talk about. So, I'm sceptical about the ideas of love and grace and mercy and forgiveness. The only churches I had gone to were fundamentalist ones, and I mean this is the extreme sense of the word. They were not just conservative, they were abusive. Some were charismatic/Pentecostal, some were just judgmental. They all tried to convince me, without ever attempting to adress overall concerns like sin and estrangement and despair that Christianity was simply about agreeing with them in their own particular ideas... and that was authentic faith. And as examples I would cite truly ridiculous things like "if you are a Christian you will speak in tongues" or "if you are a Christian you go around passing tracts about hell out" or "the 'Left Behind' approach to the future is the only Christian alternative". But I knew these people, and their believes never changed, never transformed... anyone. So, Christianity was an exclusive country, a caste system of ins and outs, a religious product of culture and socialisation.

<<there exists no dream worth chasing if it cannot satisfy//there exists no god worth serving if he cannot hear your cry>>

I felt hurt and unprotected. And I felt like Christians were all about hurting and scarring people like me. So I wanted to protect myself, so I set myself out learn everything about Christianity and the historical Jesus. I was also searching for an authentic faith, whatever that may be...

To be continued, hold on...

[Pacigoth13]

So I took with me to college scepticism and criticism. And I was gothic, as a symbol not of rebellion, but of existential angst. And I mean that not in the Marilyn Manson sense, but in the philosophical tradition of existentialism. If you had met me online 5 years ago, I would be "gothica13" not "pacigoth13". And I took all of this with me to my seminary classes, which was, at the time, about evenly split between "conservative" and "liberal" professors.

So I became a higher critic. Not only a higher critic, but also a hypercritic. And I read conservative and liberal ideas through this lens. On the conservative side of things, I rejected Churchianity and Biblianity, which was what I took them to espousing. On the liberal side of things, I rejected their notion of human nature, which, to a liberal is almost the entire point of being liberal. Paul and Luther, who both realised that their own nature was skubala, were being realistic. The downplaying of our sinful condition and our need for salvation is the departure mark where liberalism goes off into cloud cuckoo land. The insistence of "belief" in ludicrous ideas is the departure mark for conservatives. So conservatives here can put me down for being liberal and when I get tired of it, I'll go hang out with the liberals so that I can be put down for being conservative. But hey, isn't such a predicament another funny irony of this mess of existence?

So I was searching for the historical Jesus, in search of an authentic faith based on reality and not fantasy. But the faith was a missing link, a glitch, and no, it didn't get filled by research or history, though both made the question much more looming (how does one account, historically, for the early church dying horrible deaths for an encounter with the risen Lord if it didn't happen?). I would even say that realising that Christianity didn't have to be fundamentalist or mythological made me more ripe to having faith in Jesus. But it wasn't until I had my own 'born again' experience...

I didn't get 'saved' at an evangelical crusade or a revival or anything like that. It was at a Tony Campola conference. Because that was when I "got it". I was very cynical before hand. And violent. I almost got expelled for violent behaviour. And suicidal, I was going to punish myself for myself once and for all. And, I don't know how to describe this... an inner deep dark lack of peace, if that makes any kind of sense? Don't know how to describe it really, just an inner assurance that everything was screwed up. But then I "got it". God isn't absent from human pain, pondering whether or not he will stop it--God is love in the face of human pain--as we see in the pain struck eyes of Jesus dying as a martyr for a kingdom of love, and grace, and forgiveness. And then you get it, this cross is the only symbol of hope we really have, it really is. The only god who helps us is the god who comes and dies on our behalf. And that is right where God is when we are suffering--right there suffering with us. And resurrection is the only symbol we have that love and grace and forgiveness and God really win out and over the pain. You can't separate the two. If God is ultimate meaning and authentic existence, then God is only found in the Jesus who goes through death and out the other side into what life was always meant to be. And then I found myself crying, and my heart breaking inside, because for all of my experiences with conservative and liberal Christianity, I didn't get it until God made salvation real to me.

So that is the answer to your question, why I know that Jesus and his love is all we have in this world...

[SPALATIN]

So I took with me to college scepticism and criticism. And I was gothic, as a symbol not of rebellion, but of existential angst. And I mean that not in the Marilyn Manson sense, but in the philosophical tradition of existentialism. If you had met me online 5 years ago, I would be "gothica13" not "pacigoth13". And I took all of this with me to my seminary classes, which was, at the time, about evenly split between "conservative" and "liberal" professors.

So I became a higher critic. Not only a higher critic, but also a hypercritic. And I read conservative and liberal ideas through this lens. On the conservative side of things, I rejected Churchianity and Biblianity, which was what I took them to espousing. On the liberal side of things, I rejected their notion of human nature, which, to a liberal is almost the entire point of being liberal. Paul and Luther, who both realised that their own nature was skubala, were being realistic. The downplaying of our sinful condition and our need for salvation is the departure mark where liberalism goes off into cloud cuckoo land. The insistence of "belief" in ludicrous ideas is the departure mark for conservatives. So conservatives here can put me down for being liberal and when I get tired of it, I'll go hang out with the liberals so that I can be put down for being conservative. But hey, isn't such a predicament another funny irony of this mess of existence?

So I was searching for the historical Jesus, in search of an authentic faith based on reality and not fantasy. But the faith was a missing link, a glitch, and no, it didn't get filled by research or history, though both made the question much more looming (how does one account, historically, for the early church dying horrible deaths for an encounter with the risen Lord if it didn't happen?). I would even say that realising that Christianity didn't have to be fundamentalist or mythological made me more ripe to having faith in Jesus. But it wasn't until I had my own 'born again' experience...

I didn't get 'saved' at an evangelical crusade or a revival or anything like that. It was at a Tony Campola conference. Because that was when I "got it". I was very cynical before hand. And violent. I almost got expelled for violent behaviour. And suicidal, I was going to punish myself for myself once and for all. And, I don't know how to describe this... an inner deep dark lack of peace, if that makes any kind of sense? Don't know how to describe it really, just an inner assurance that everything was screwed up. But then I "got it". God isn't absent from human pain, pondering whether or not he will stop it--God is love in the face of human pain--as we see in the pain struck eyes of Jesus dying as a martyr for a kingdom of love, and grace, and forgiveness. And then you get it, this cross is the only symbol of hope we really have, it really is. The only god who helps us is the god who comes and dies on our behalf. And that is right where God is when we are suffering--right there suffering with us. And resurrection is the only symbol we have that love and grace and forgiveness and God really win out and over the pain. You can't separate the two. If God is ultimate meaning and authentic existence, then God is only found in the Jesus who goes through death and out the other side into what life was always meant to be. And then I found myself crying, and my heart breaking inside, because for all of my experiences with conservative and liberal Christianity, I didn't get it until God made salvation real to me.

So that is the answer to your question, why I know that Jesus and his love is all we have in this world...
That is a Good story as it shows how you understood the Gift God gave to you by dying on a cross for what you deserve because of your sinfulness.

So let me ask you this if asked by someone "when were you saved?" what is your answer?

Mine is "2000 years ago"

[Lotar]

Inspiring story, but I think you are missing the point here. It's not about legalism. Not a single one of us is declaring that other Christians go to hell, that there is some specific work one must do, ect. We are speaking of confidence in knowing what is right. It's rediculous to say that there is no right or wrong, no absolutes.

I guess in your eyes it makes us funamentalist and legalistic to believe that we are correct, personally I don't see how. I don't have a closed mind, I've always been open to correction.

I am sure that the vector statics I use to design structures is the correct way to do so. If someone presents a compelling arguement otherwise, I will not write them off, and if I am convinced, I will change.

I've had my fill of relativism in the Church, and what I've seen, this relativism always breeds either a new form of legalism or amoralism. There are certian things that are relative, to be sure, and as ChiRho can testify, I am a liberal as can be, just not when it comes to doctrine.

BTW, to claim that Luther was a relativist is to ignore his writings completely and fabricate a new man. ;)

[ChiRho]

Inspiring story, but I think you are missing the point here. It's not about legalism. Not a single one of us is declaring that other Christians go to hell, that there is some specific work one must do, ect. We are speaking of confidence in knowing what is right. It's rediculous to say that there is no right or wrong, no absolutes.

I guess in your eyes it makes us funamentalist and legalistic to believe that we are correct, personally I don't see how. I don't have a closed mind, I've always been open to correction.

I am sure that the vector statics I use to design structures is the correct way to do so. If someone presents a compelling arguement otherwise, I will not write them off, and if I am convinced, I will change.

I've had my fill of relativism in the Church, and what I've seen, this relativism always breeds either a new form of legalism or amoralism. There are certian things that are relative, to be sure, and as ChiRho can testify, I am a liberal as can be, just not when it comes to doctrine.

BTW, to claim that Luther was a relativist is to ignore his writings completely and fabricate a new man. ;)

Yup!

[Pacigoth13]

1. I do not have a problem saying that I was "saved 2,000 years" ago. There is a difference when it is realised, though. People use the phrase "I was saved" in more than one way. Where is the connecting strand between a person crying out to God for mercy and God actually giving the means of salvation? They differ in our timing, not God's.

[Pacigoth13]

2. I remember saying I was a relativist, not that Luther was! I cited him only by saying that he and Paul both really understood our human situation as sinners. I'm not sure how being aware of the sinfulness of humanity somehow gets equated as relativism...

[Pacigoth13]

3. You are right, it is ridiculous to say there is no right or wrong. There is. God is the absolute and Jesus shows us the absolute in the midst of our subjective world. I said that humans cannot know right from wrong, not there is no right or wrong. There is a big difference. When you say that your variation of Christianity understands the difference you are right to locate the absolute in Jesus and what Jesus did--but you expect too much to think that we can understand the difference in all parts of doctrine, etc. etc.

[Pacigoth13]

4. When I spoke of fundamentalistic church experiences in my life I in no way had in mind any Lutheran church, LCMS or not. If it came across that I thought that anyone here was like the church people of my past, then I was grievously misunderstood. That doesn't mean that I agree with LCMS or anyone else for that matter--but no, I don't see the Missouri Synod as a destructive force of fundamentalism.

[Pacigoth13]

5. Right, some things are relative, some things are not. Most of reality is relative, but we have at least one absolute. There may be more. But God/Jesus/Holy Spirit is definately an absolute--the trinity is Being in perfect relation to us--encounters with the sacred give us ultimate meaning and authentic existence. Even if you conclude that all matters of doctrine are absolute, I still would not be convinced that we are the ones who could know.

[Pacigoth13]

6. Does restricted relativism always breed liberal? Regardless of how much you disagree with me or think I am wrong, do I fall in the liberal category? Find other liberals who believe in original sin, believe we are all sinners who need salvation, believe that salvation is only in Jesus, that believe Jesus rose bodily from the dead and will bodily come again, and who are pro-life and who believe homosexual activity is wrong--then I will proudly admit being a "liberal". As for the amoral charge, I disagree again. If Jesus is seen as the absolute then ethics are based in him, not just in any old human whim. Wasn't the phrase "what would Jesus do?" coined to oppose amoralism?

[Lotar]

No, at least at first, relativism does not always breed liberalism.

Basically, we are talking about pietism here. Basically reducing the funtion of the Church/Christianity to the persute of personal/individual piety, etc.

So we have to look at dogmatic vs legalistic. Many pietists will after all, like you, JVAC, etc., will claim that they are indeed conservative and will point to their moral beliefs, their piety. Orthodox Lutherans, such as ChiRho, Rech, etc., of course see this position in itself as liberal, or at least romanizing.

Pietists/relativists, are directly opposed to dogma, at least in theory. They see doctrine as being unclear and truth unknowable, so therefore wish to overlook doctrinal differences and de-emphasize them, instead focusing on the pursute of piety. Most often this first produces legalism; this action is acceptable, this action is not, etc. Producing condemnation and work-righteousness. These groups tend to grow, as people like to believe that they are atleast in some way responsible for their own salvation.

Eventually this tends to lead towards disenfranchisement. And then the enlightened thought that morals are indeed based off of doctrine, and since doctrine is relative, so are morals. Such leads to a split into two groups. The total liberal relativists, such as are predominent in Pietist denominations like UM and ECUSA. And then there are the reactionists, ie, the fundamentalists.

The fundamentalists want to remain legalistic/moralistic, so they outline certian "fundamentals" of the faith. All of equal value and importance, many of which have little or no Christiological implications. They are the ones who like to come to this board and make their lists, "What are the essentials," etc.


And that is what people don't understand, we are not pietists of either vein of thought. If you asked us, "what is essential" well, I'd say all of it, though not all is absolutely essential. If you accept the creeds, I am never going to tell you that you are going to hell, but if you regect Christian truths of the catholic faith, then you do indeed put yourself in jeopardy. Christianity is as much about the faith, about the corporate body, the communion of saints, and the nature of Christ, as it is about walking the straight and narrow. We will always err, and putting our faith in a couple fundamentals and a righteous life is dangerous indeed.

[ChiRho]

No, at least at first, relativism does not always breed liberalism.

Basically, we are talking about pietism here. Basically reducing the funtion of the Church/Christianity to the persute of personal/individual piety, etc.

So we have to look at dogmatic vs legalistic. Many pietists will after all, like you, JVAC, etc., will claim that they are indeed conservative and will point to their moral beliefs, their piety. Orthodox Lutherans, such as ChiRho, Rech, etc., of course see this position in itself as liberal, or at least romanizing.

Pietists/relativists, are directly opposed to dogma, at least in theory. They see doctrine as being unclear and truth unknowable, so therefore wish to overlook doctrinal differences and de-emphasize them, instead focusing on the pursute of piety. Most often this first produces legalism; this action is acceptable, this action is not, etc. Producing condemnation and work-righteousness. These groups tend to grow, as people like to believe that they are atleast in some way responsible for their own salvation.

Eventually this tends to lead towards disenfranchisement. And then the enlightened thought that morals are indeed based off of doctrine, and since doctrine is relative, so are morals. Such leads to a split into two groups. The total liberal relativists, such as are predominent in Pietist denominations like UM and ECUSA. And then there are the reactionists, ie, the fundamentalists.

The fundamentalists want to remain legalistic/moralistic, so they outline certian "fundamentals" of the faith. All of equal value and importance, many of which have little or no Christiological implications. They are the ones who like to come to this board and make their lists, "What are the essentials," etc.


And that is what people don't understand, we are not pietists of either vein of thought. If you asked us, "what is essential" well, I'd say all of it, though not all is absolutely essential. If you accept the creeds, I am never going to tell you that you are going to hell, but if you regect Christian truths of the catholic faith, then you do indeed put yourself in jeopardy. Christianity is as much about the faith, about the corporate body, the communion of saints, and the nature of Christ, as it is about walking the straight and narrow. We will always err, and putting our faith in a couple fundamentals and a righteous life is dangerous indeed.

Yeah, what he said!

It is so nice to have Lotar back! :)

[SPALATIN]

No, at least at first, relativism does not always breed liberalism.

Basically, we are talking about pietism here. Basically reducing the funtion of the Church/Christianity to the persute of personal/individual piety, etc.

So we have to look at dogmatic vs legalistic. Many pietists will after all, like you, JVAC, etc., will claim that they are indeed conservative and will point to their moral beliefs, their piety. Orthodox Lutherans, such as ChiRho, Rech, etc., of course see this position in itself as liberal, or at least romanizing.

Pietists/relativists, are directly opposed to dogma, at least in theory. They see doctrine as being unclear and truth unknowable, so therefore wish to overlook doctrinal differences and de-emphasize them, instead focusing on the pursute of piety. Most often this first produces legalism; this action is acceptable, this action is not, etc. Producing condemnation and work-righteousness. These groups tend to grow, as people like to believe that they are atleast in some way responsible for their own salvation.

Eventually this tends to lead towards disenfranchisement. And then the enlightened thought that morals are indeed based off of doctrine, and since doctrine is relative, so are morals. Such leads to a split into two groups. The total liberal relativists, such as are predominent in Pietist denominations like UM and ECUSA. And then there are the reactionists, ie, the fundamentalists.

The fundamentalists want to remain legalistic/moralistic, so they outline certian "fundamentals" of the faith. All of equal value and importance, many of which have little or no Christiological implications. They are the ones who like to come to this board and make their lists, "What are the essentials," etc.


And that is what people don't understand, we are not pietists of either vein of thought. If you asked us, "what is essential" well, I'd say all of it, though not all is absolutely essential. If you accept the creeds, I am never going to tell you that you are going to hell, but if you regect Christian truths of the catholic faith, then you do indeed put yourself in jeopardy. Christianity is as much about the faith, about the corporate body, the communion of saints, and the nature of Christ, as it is about walking the straight and narrow. We will always err, and putting our faith in a couple fundamentals and a righteous life is dangerous indeed.
Another difference between pietism and the Orthodoxy of the church is in how we interpret the Holy Spirit and works. Pietism looks to the Epistle of James 2

[/QUOTE]14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that–and shudder.
20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[4 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=James+2&version=NIV#footnote_119860978_4)] ? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"[QUOTE/]

Those who are from the other school say that Faith is a gift and worked in us by the Spirit and therefore any good that comes from us is because of the Holy Spirit which is in us.

Should we yield to the Holy Spirit? Yes we should. I am just saying that we need to give credit where credit is due and that is not to ourselves but to the Holy Spirit. I am not saying that Pietists don't understand this concept but they sometimes forget that it is not them but Christ in them. Even at my best I am still a sinner.

Scott Strohkirch

[SPALATIN]

No, at least at first, relativism does not always breed liberalism.

Basically, we are talking about pietism here. Basically reducing the funtion of the Church/Christianity to the persute of personal/individual piety, etc.

So we have to look at dogmatic vs legalistic. Many pietists will after all, like you, JVAC, etc., will claim that they are indeed conservative and will point to their moral beliefs, their piety. Orthodox Lutherans, such as ChiRho, Rech, etc., of course see this position in itself as liberal, or at least romanizing.

Pietists/relativists, are directly opposed to dogma, at least in theory. They see doctrine as being unclear and truth unknowable, so therefore wish to overlook doctrinal differences and de-emphasize them, instead focusing on the pursute of piety. Most often this first produces legalism; this action is acceptable, this action is not, etc. Producing condemnation and work-righteousness. These groups tend to grow, as people like to believe that they are atleast in some way responsible for their own salvation.

Eventually this tends to lead towards disenfranchisement. And then the enlightened thought that morals are indeed based off of doctrine, and since doctrine is relative, so are morals. Such leads to a split into two groups. The total liberal relativists, such as are predominent in Pietist denominations like UM and ECUSA. And then there are the reactionists, ie, the fundamentalists.

The fundamentalists want to remain legalistic/moralistic, so they outline certian "fundamentals" of the faith. All of equal value and importance, many of which have little or no Christiological implications. They are the ones who like to come to this board and make their lists, "What are the essentials," etc.


And that is what people don't understand, we are not pietists of either vein of thought. If you asked us, "what is essential" well, I'd say all of it, though not all is absolutely essential. If you accept the creeds, I am never going to tell you that you are going to hell, but if you regect Christian truths of the catholic faith, then you do indeed put yourself in jeopardy. Christianity is as much about the faith, about the corporate body, the communion of saints, and the nature of Christ, as it is about walking the straight and narrow. We will always err, and putting our faith in a couple fundamentals and a righteous life is dangerous indeed.
I think for the most part many think that Paul and James are saying something different. But are they? Pietists focus on showing their faith by works, but sometimes forget to credit the Holy Spirit that is doing the work. They can't do God's work of their own free will so it has to be him working in them. But yet Orthodoxy sometimes uses that as an excuse for not doing good works because only God through his Holy Spirit can do good works. (sounds like a philosophy class I went through.)


14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that–and shudder.
20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[4 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=James+2&version=NIV#footnote_119860978_4)] ? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"
Now look at Ephesians 2:8-9 [\QUOTE] 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9not by works, so that no one can boast. [/QUOTE]
Put these two together and try to make sense of it. ^_^

[SPALATIN]

No, at least at first, relativism does not always breed liberalism.

Basically, we are talking about pietism here. Basically reducing the funtion of the Church/Christianity to the persute of personal/individual piety, etc.

So we have to look at dogmatic vs legalistic. Many pietists will after all, like you, JVAC, etc., will claim that they are indeed conservative and will point to their moral beliefs, their piety. Orthodox Lutherans, such as ChiRho, Rech, etc., of course see this position in itself as liberal, or at least romanizing.

Pietists/relativists, are directly opposed to dogma, at least in theory. They see doctrine as being unclear and truth unknowable, so therefore wish to overlook doctrinal differences and de-emphasize them, instead focusing on the pursute of piety. Most often this first produces legalism; this action is acceptable, this action is not, etc. Producing condemnation and work-righteousness. These groups tend to grow, as people like to believe that they are atleast in some way responsible for their own salvation.

Eventually this tends to lead towards disenfranchisement. And then the enlightened thought that morals are indeed based off of doctrine, and since doctrine is relative, so are morals. Such leads to a split into two groups. The total liberal relativists, such as are predominent in Pietist denominations like UM and ECUSA. And then there are the reactionists, ie, the fundamentalists.

The fundamentalists want to remain legalistic/moralistic, so they outline certian "fundamentals" of the faith. All of equal value and importance, many of which have little or no Christiological implications. They are the ones who like to come to this board and make their lists, "What are the essentials," etc.


And that is what people don't understand, we are not pietists of either vein of thought. If you asked us, "what is essential" well, I'd say all of it, though not all is absolutely essential. If you accept the creeds, I am never going to tell you that you are going to hell, but if you regect Christian truths of the catholic faith, then you do indeed put yourself in jeopardy. Christianity is as much about the faith, about the corporate body, the communion of saints, and the nature of Christ, as it is about walking the straight and narrow. We will always err, and putting our faith in a couple fundamentals and a righteous life is dangerous indeed.
I think for the most part many think that Paul and James are saying something different. But are they? Pietists focus on showing their faith by works, but sometimes forget to credit the Holy Spirit that is doing the work. They can't do God's work of their own free will so it has to be him working in them. But yet Orthodoxy sometimes uses that as an excuse for not doing good works because only God through his Holy Spirit can do good works. (sounds like a philosophy class I went through.)

"14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that–and shudder.
20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[4 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=James+2&version=NIV#footnote_119860978_4)] ? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"

Now look at "Ephesians 2:8-9 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9not by works, so that no one can boast."

Put these two together and try to make sense of it. ^_^

[Pacigoth13]

Right, we agree, salvation is by grace alone... and this has to do with my posts... how?