Messages

1

Your Turn / Re: Article on different type of Lutherans in the ELCA

« on: October 22, 2018, 10:36:32 AM »

Thanks! That's a good resource but this was an article online.

2

Your Turn / Article on different type of Lutherans in the ELCA

« on: October 22, 2018, 10:18:36 AM »

I am trying to find an article that was written in the early 2000's I believe about the different types of Lutherans in the ELCA. I cannot remember who wrote it. I thought it was a Forum Letter article but I know it talks about Evangelical Catholics, Word Alone, Peace and Justice Lutherans, etc. This was Pre-2009 so it could be updated a little but the article was very good on the differences in the ELCA. Anyone remember this article?

3

Your Turn / Article on different types of Lutherans in the ELCA

« on: October 01, 2015, 05:06:29 PM »

There was a great article written in the 2000's either in the Lutheran Forum Letter or another place about the different kind of Lutherans in the ELCA. It was listed as categories like Evangelical Catholics( including STS folks), Word Alone, Willow Creek, Charismatic Renewal, Pietists, Justice and Peace, etc etc which was very good. I probably have some of the terms wrong. I can't remember who wrote it but I thought it was someone from the Forum. I thought it gave a fair representation of all the groups. There probably needs to be an update now to include emergents and missional.    Does anybody remember this article and who wrote it?


Richard

4

Your Turn / Re: Excellent article in the Fall 2015 Lutheran Forum for LCMS folks and others?

« on: October 01, 2015, 04:39:35 PM »

I just renewed my subscription. Ha!

Richard

5

Your Turn / Re: Kim Davis and the Pope

« on: October 01, 2015, 04:00:44 PM »

Kim Davis belongs to the Apostolic Christian denomination.
The poster who said she is  United Pentecostal is wrong.

The Vatican newspaper said that the meeting between
Pope Francis and Kim Davis was private and that no
photos would be released.  Kim and her husband met with
the Pope for 15 minutes at the Vatican Embassy in Washington
D.C.
[/

They deny the Trinity. Oneness Pentecostalism (Modalism) like the UPC.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/09/splainer-whats-apostolic-christian-and-why-kim-davis-hair-so-long/71947018/

Richard

Again, from their website:

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one

Just before leaving the earth, Jesus gave His disciples their final instructions. He clearly communicated that they should baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In other conversations with His disciples, He reminded them of the unity (oneness) between Himself and the Father: “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30), and “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. 28:19).

As the other pages in this section make clear, there is equality in the nature of all three Persons of the God-head. However, as we consider the whole counsel of God, and by His grace “rightly divide” these Scriptures, we see the three Persons occupying different roles. Jesus acknowledged that His Father is greater than He (John 14:28), and the Apostle Paul wrote that “the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3).

They are still Oneness Pentecostals. They deny the Trinity. They baptize only in Jesus name. They are very clever in using Christian Orthodox terms to make you think they believe like Historic Orthodox Christians. I am not saying there are no Christians in the group but they depart from the Tradition of the one, holy, apostolic church! They are anti-Trinitarians!

http://www.apostolic-churches.com/beliefs.html
http://www.apostolic-churches.com/godhead.html

Richard

6

Your Turn / Re: Kim Davis and the Pope

« on: October 01, 2015, 03:17:08 PM »

Kim Davis belongs to the Apostolic Christian denomination.
The poster who said she is  United Pentecostal is wrong.

The Vatican newspaper said that the meeting between
Pope Francis and Kim Davis was private and that no
photos would be released.  Kim and her husband met with
the Pope for 15 minutes at the Vatican Embassy in Washington
D.C.
[/

They deny the Trinity. Oneness Pentecostalism (Modalism) like the UPC.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/09/splainer-whats-apostolic-christian-and-why-kim-davis-hair-so-long/71947018/

Richard

7

Your Turn / Re: I left both Christianity and Islam behind: “It was the problem of evil and innoc

« on: October 01, 2015, 12:38:46 PM »

I recall reading that Luther said that we should get rid of the phrase "free will" and call it what it really is, "self will."

This is concordant with what the Fathers tend to say on the subject, though I'm not sure it's incongruent with the phrase "free will."

The idea is that God created us as free agents and not automatons.  The Lutheran concern is that if we have "free will," then salvation becomes our doing, since we can either will evil or good.  But that's not what we mean by "free will."  We simply mean that our decisions are ours, that we are actual and free agents.  We are bound by sin, and in that sense we are not "free," but we (Orthodox) would say this is not an impairment of the natural will ontologically, but rather a result of mortality.  We have become animalistic, and we seek to preserve and nurture the self above the other (which is why I like the term "self will").  That inhibits our freedom to do the good, but it does not mean we are deterministically required to act in a certain way, as if another agent were causing us to do good or evil.

Part of the problem is what we would term the "gnomic will," which is in reality a gnomic mode of willing.  We deliberate between good and evil, and between real good and apparent good, and so we end up doing that which seems right to us whether it is right or not.  Per Maximus, Christ did not have a gnomic will, because His human will was in perfect accord with His divine will, and thus no deliberation was necessary -- Christ saw and did the good clearly.  We see and do what we will -- that is, we choose freely -- but our choices are unclear to us as to their moral value, and so we sin, and frequently this is so even if we try to do that which we think is right.
[/q

I would think the fact that these choices are unclear to us and that we struggle as stated in Romans 7 even after baptism that self will and bondage to sin is an appropriate term. This what makes Word, Sacraments including daily Repentance(confession and absolution) necessary.

Richard

8

Your Turn / Re: Kim Davis and the Pope

« on: October 01, 2015, 12:03:09 PM »

Pope Francis is a very gracious man. He met with a heretic. Kim Davis is United Pentecostal not Orthodox at all.

9

Your Turn / Re: Another Good Article from Bp. Eaton

« on: September 26, 2015, 02:45:50 PM »

Bishop Eaton talks alot about the Theology of the cross, Distinction of Law/Gospel, importance of the creeds, Luther's small Catechism, not dropping the "Lutheran" from our churches. She is getting a lot of criticism from some as you can imagine.This is a good sign.

10

Your Turn / Thanks to ALPB for being at the STS Retreat

« on: September 26, 2015, 02:36:33 PM »

As a new member of STS(Society of Holy Trinity) I want to thank ALPB for being at the STS Retreat this year! I love Lutheran Forum and all the materials from ALPB. This is how I learned about STS, For All the Saints and other good Orthodox Confessional Lutheran materials. Keep up the good work! Daniel V. Biles "A Liturgical Catechism" is my latest addition to my library.

God's blessings!

+Rev. Richard Kidd  STS
Bethel Lutheran Church,  Boardman, Ohio

11

Your Turn / Re: So what, ELCAers, are you going to do?

« on: October 03, 2010, 02:27:00 PM »

I will continue to preach the gospel and administer the sacraments and welcome everybody in the name of Jesus! Pray for our church and the whole body of Christ.

12

Your Turn / Re: Poll: Born Lutheran or a Convert?

« on: August 14, 2010, 11:48:58 PM »

I was born Southern Baptist then went Charismatic, Calvinist, Evangelical free or whatever and finally Lutheran.

13

Your Turn / Re: Luther and inerrancy of Scripture

« on: August 11, 2010, 07:20:53 PM »

If every dissertation has to prove some new thesis, you can see that NT scholars were under a lot of pressure to find that their predecessors hadn't got it exactly right, and they were encouraged by the academic system itself to pick away, pick away.

Classics scholars, Paul, got just as methodologically sceptical as NT scholars, and did it earlier. Poor Homer never had an unquestioned breathing mark. I think that (historically) that's where the NT scholars got some bad habits (and we patrists, too).

Michael, this is precisely what I think too and have thought for a long time. Scholars' quest to be recognized for something "new" has led to a whole host of abusive treatment of Holy Scripture.

C.S. Lewis (no stranger to the historical/critical method) had this to say about the whole matter in Screwtape Letters: "My dear Wormwood,...You will find that a good many Christian-political writers think that Christianity began going wrong, and departing from the doctrine of its Founder, at a very early stage. Now this idea must be used by us to encourage once again the conception of a 'historical Jesus' to be found by clearing away later 'accretions and perversions' and then be contrasted with the whole Christian tradition. In the last generation we promoted the construction of such a 'historical Jeus' on liberal and humanitarian lines; we are now putting forward a new 'historical Jesus' on the Marxian, catastrophic, and revolutionary lines. The advantages of these constructions, which we intend to change every thirty years or so, are manifold. In the first place they all tend to direct men's devotion to something which does not exist, for each 'historical Jesus' is unhistorical. The documents say what they say, and cannot be added to; each new 'historical Jesus' therefore has to be got out of them by suppression at one point and exaggeration at another, and by that sort of guessing (brilliant is teh adjective we teach humans to apply to it) on which no one would risk ten shillings in ordinary life, but which is enough to produce a crop of new Napoleons, new Shakespeares, and new Swifts, in every publishers autumn list..." (Screw Tape Letters. #23).

Nothing new under the sun there. There is a demonic and prideful foundation to the HC method.

Peace in the Lord Jesus Christ!
Rob Buechler

Lewis was no inerranist:

Lewis’s doctrinal core was considerably smaller than Schaeffer’s. Although he rejected naturalistic evolutionism (see “The Funeral of a Great Myth” in Christian Reflections), he saw no need to give Genesis a literal reading and thought that the Old Testament contained some mythical materials. He never articulated the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone, although he stressed the uniqueness of Christ, the historicity of the resurrection of Christ and the need for faith in salvation. He also believed in purgatory (which is obvious in The Great Divorce) and in praying for the dead. These ideas rankle many conservative Protestant readers, despite their affection for his deft apologetic abilities in other areas.

Source:http://www.leaderu.com/philosophy/twogiants-review.html

14

Your Turn / Re: Luther and inerrancy of Scripture

« on: August 11, 2010, 01:47:16 PM »

To quote a professed atheist professor in graduate school: "Higher criticism begins in atheism and ends in atheism."

To quote a Lutheran Christian professor in seminary: "Higher criticism is absolutely necessary for properly understanding the Scriptures."

Good. Glad I can toss all my volumes of the Ancient Christian Commentary on the Scripture, my set of Luther's Works(at least the first 30 volumes) and other such improper efforts to understand the Scriptures.

Might as well toss out your NT as well...

The Quote_To quote a professed atheist professor in graduate school: "Higher criticism begins in atheism and ends in atheism."is so wrong.

I know many conservative Orthodox Christians that do not believe in inerrancy. LOL

So you take an Atheist professor's word over people that are believers who are committed to Christ. Think about that

15

Your Turn / Re: Luther and inerrancy of Scripture

« on: August 11, 2010, 12:35:12 PM »

I agree with Pastor Buechler on this.

One must distinguish between a stance toward the nature of Scripture (inerrancy, inspiration, etc) and the herneutics applied in its interpretation. Origen is a prime example. He absolutely believed that every word was inspired and without error - even for many books now classified as pseudepigraphal. His hermeneutic of allegorization though led to rather unique and strange interpretations of that inspired, inerrant Word.

Luther was a product of his times when it came to hermeneutics. He was strongly influenced by Nicholas of Lyra who was in turn influenced by the French rabbi Rashi and as such he rejected the four fold levels of meaning dominant since Augustine but sometimes did slip back into old habits in his exegesis. In theory he was an Antiochene but sometimes (less as the years went on) an Alexandrian. But neither he nor Augustine not any other exegete until the Enlightenment were higher critics or anything close to that.

Until the Enlightenment, Higher Criticism did not exist as a common stance toward Scripture. To be sure, there were individuals who approached the text with some of the skepticism of a critic. I believe it was the medeival rabbi Ibn Ezra raised an issue of more than one author of Isaiah. But these individual and isolated voices do not give higher criticism an equal footing in the history of the Church or the Synagogue.

To quote a professed atheist professor in graduate school: "Higher criticism begins in atheism and ends in atheism."

What I meant is that Luther would be accused of that today because inerrancy as it is taught today is not like Luthers view.
This was my point.