Messages

It's an old article but it clearly speaks to the issues in The Episcopal Church: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203476804576614932308302042

From the article: When the Church of the Good Shepherd in Binghamton, N.Y., left the Episcopal Church over disagreements about what the Bible says about sexuality, the congregation offered to pay for the building in which it worshiped. In return the Episcopal Church sued to seize the building, then sold it for a fraction of the price to someone who turned it into a mosque.

Religion does play a role in granting refugee status: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/427262/refugee-religious-test-shameful-and-not-american-except-federal-law-requires-it-andrew?iloj9AZ6uKlGCc1L.01

The ELCA says sorry for something that Luther did 500 years ago, yet in 2012 (?), the ELCA wanted all military funding to Israel from the US to stop.  I seem to remember the Jewish communities weren't happy with you guys then.

Earth and All Stars

It's 10 months. 

I wish I could like the Reverend Doctor President Gard's comments.

If the Evangelists and the Apostle Paul wanted us to use juice in the cup, they would have used the word "trux" which was around during their time.  Also, as the Supper was within the context of the Passover meal, wine (yayin) would have been used.  Jesus used specific elements.  It is not for us to change those elements.

Where does the scripture say that wine was used?

Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18.

Boom!

If the Evangelists and the Apostle Paul wanted us to use juice in the cup, they would have used the word "trux" which was around during their time.  Also, as the Supper was within the context of the Passover meal, wine (yayin) would have been used.  Jesus used specific elements.  It is not for us to change those elements.

Where does the scripture say that wine was used?

Wow, you got me.  It says Mt. Dew.

If the Evangelists and the Apostle Paul wanted us to use juice in the cup, they would have used the word "trux" which was around during their time.  Also, as the Supper was within the context of the Passover meal, wine (yayin) would have been used.  Jesus used specific elements.  It is not for us to change those elements. 

There is a perception among some LCMS pastors that they are not upholding their ordination vows unless they make certain all their brother pastors interpret and teach the Bible as they do.  This is particularly true in regard to the interpretation of Genesis 2, I Cor 11, I Cor 14 and I Tim 2, texts said to define the place of women in the church and to establish the immutable will of God that women remain subject to the spiritual leadership and authority of man .

Because Matt asked for a discussion of these texts, it was assumed he was denying the inspiration of the Bible. Things escalated from there. As often happens, both sides dug in their heels until discussion became impossible.

Until such time as church leaders follow through on the proposed vision of the Koinonia Project, there is reason to anticipate the future removal  of pastors who , like Matt, question the fact that God for all times assigned woman a place in the church from which God will not speak or act according to His nature as God.

   

I think that it is bit of an understatement to claim that Dr. Becker simply "asked for a discussion" of the texts in question.  If it is claimed that those in positions of authority within the LCMS already had their minds made up ahead of time on this "discussion," the same could be said of Dr. Becker.  He was very convinced of his position and was determined to promote it.  Do you honestly believe that Dr. Becker felt he could be convinced that his conclusions were not right?  I certainly did not see that in the public material he published.  I think that it also needs to be clarified that, as the CTCR itself noted, Dr. Becker was operating with a different hermeneutic than the LCMS officially uses.  As has been noted also, it was not that Dr. Becker dared to have questions about the matters at hand and even be in dissent over them, but that he continued to write and publish his dissenting views which violated the process he was attempting to follow.

Let's not forget that Dr. Becker denies portions of the Athanasian Creed.

The Blessed Virgin Mary
Sts. Perpetua and Felicitas
St. Monica
Katharina von Bora

Even if you are correct. pastor Weedon, and i am not sure you are, do you endorse the bishop's interference in the life of the Church of Sweden, where he participated in illicit ordinations? It is as if an ELCA bishop would go into an LCMS district and, at the invitation of dissidents, ordain a woman for them. That is surely sowing division, is it not?

But an ELCA church did let dissident Roman Catholics use their church to "ordain" a woman.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article5392290.html

Chesterton in Orthodoxy:

"Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved."

Sigh.

I wouldn't dispute original sin, but I agree that it's not necessary. Sin entered the world before there was original sin being passed down through the generations. Humans don't need the defect of Original Sin to sin. It was in the human nature before there was Original Sin.


Even with a belief in Satan and devils, I can say that they are unnecessary. Humans will sin without the Adversary and Slanderers tempting them.

Brian, you may want to read article I of the Formula of Concord.  You sound like Flacius.

The humans were created without sin.


In that perfect state, they willingly chose to disobey God and ate the forbidden fruit.


When did original sin originate?

2. In the second place, this, too, is clear and true, as the Nineteenth Article of the Augsburg Confession teaches, that God is not a creator, author, or cause of sin, but by the instigation of the devil through one man sin (which is a work of the devil) has entered the world, Rom. 5, 12; 1 John 3, 7. And even at the present day, in this corruption [in this corruption of nature], God does not create and make sin in us, but with the nature which God at the present day still creates and makes in men original sin is propagated from sinful seed, through carnal conception and birth from father and mother. (FC SD I:2)

1. We believe, teach, and confess that there is a distinction between man's nature, not only as he was originally created by God pure and holy and without sin, but also as we have it [that nature] now after the Fall, namely, between the nature [itself], which even after the Fall is and remains a creature of God, and original sin, and that this distinction is as great as the distinction between a work of God and a work of the devil.

Chesterton in Orthodoxy:

"Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved."

Sigh.

I wouldn't dispute original sin, but I agree that it's not necessary. Sin entered the world before there was original sin being passed down through the generations. Humans don't need the defect of Original Sin to sin. It was in the human nature before there was Original Sin.


Even with a belief in Satan and devils, I can say that they are unnecessary. Humans will sin without the Adversary and Slanderers tempting them.

Brian, you may want to read article I of the Formula of Concord.  You sound like Flacius.