Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - John_Hannah

Pages: 1 ... 333 334 [335] 336 337 ... 339
Your Turn / Re: CWA Decision and call interviews
« on: September 17, 2007, 09:40:42 AM »
There is also the book "No Room in the Brotherhood" by James Adams, St. Louis Post-Dispatch religion writer at the time. Dr. Tietjen's book, and (I think) a book by Fred Danker. Just in case one wants to read more than one biased interpretation of what happened.

Charles:  It is "No Room in the Brotherhood" by Fred Danker. James Adams wrote "Preus of Missouri." Tiejten wrote "Memoirs from Exile." All are accurate in my opinion. Robert Preus credited Tiejten with accuracy (with a single exception).

Your Turn / Re: Help! Ave Maria Requests
« on: September 16, 2007, 06:24:53 AM »
...and also true of every resolution and doctrinal opinion of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod.

John, huh?

The bible does not command us to believe the Brief Statement or the CTCR opinions on women.

Your Turn / Re: Help! Ave Maria Requests
« on: September 15, 2007, 08:35:19 PM »
after the recent rejoinder from our moderator, which I read after posting immediately above, let me modify my signature block:

JOHN HANNAH, LCMS (for 68 years, third generation of Iowans)

PS:  I appeal to all my Missouri colleagues not to bear false witness against that other Lutheran body, but always to put the best construction on everything (that's our translation of SC. I. 8 for you others out there). Our moderator is is very confessional, so let's follow his example.

Your Turn / Re: Help! Ave Maria Requests
« on: September 15, 2007, 08:15:49 PM »

Nowhere in Sacred Scripture is there any command, example, or promise of praying to Mary, and least of all do we find any such promise or encouragement to do so from our Lord Christ Himself.


...and also true of every resolution and doctrinal opinion of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod.


Your Turn / Re: Society of the Holy Trinity General Retreat
« on: September 15, 2007, 07:49:07 AM »
That should read  "committed TO the Book of Concord."

Your Turn / Re: Society of the Holy Trinity General Retreat
« on: September 15, 2007, 07:46:34 AM »
The Society of the Holy Trinity is thoroughly and completely committed the Book of Concord. We even take the time and trouble each year to re-declare that subscription. As Walther advocated, our subscription is unconditional! I would not hesitate anytime, anywhere to receive the Body and Blood of our Lord with members of the Society.



"evangelical catholic" is sort of code for "eventually Catholic."

It has happened. I'm not as Dave Poedell -- "...been there; done that!" But I have no intention of becoming Roman Catholic, unless some Pope can convince the Lutheran World that he can serve properly as a universal pastor.

As to those of us who have the evangelical catholic perspective, two points can be made that are broadly applicable.

1.  We defy all attempts to stereoptype. Some of us are Republican; some are Democrat. (That may be the most significant divide among today's American Lutherans. It's not about Jerry vs. Mark. It's about Hillary vs, ....) Some of us are ELCA; some LCMS. Some belong to one the new "Micro Lutheran Churches." Some of us are Scandanavian (or German)-American; some Polish, Irish, et. al. Some are even Black or Hispanic. Some of us slip off to Rome or Orthodoxy; some of us can "pass" for a Methodist or even Baptist (admittedly not a white Baptist congregation). The church political analysts do not like us because they cannot get a handle on us for an advantage to their side. We think that's good. We don't want to be organized to help the machine.

2.  We are a long standing minority in American Lutheranism and quite accustomed to pejorative names, like "eventually Catholic," in jest or seriousness. We dismiss them as the jokes that they are even when the intent is serious. We know that what we are is "eventually prevailing." To use an LCMS example. Look at how Loehe was treated and dismissed by Walther. Now I see there is a building named after Loehe at Ft. Wayne! Or compare whatever liturgical text Walther used at Trinity, St. Louis (esp. before Friedrich Lochner) with today's LSB! Again and again what we have advocated passes into the majority usage and no one gives us credit. We think that's good. Most of us do appreciate J.S. Bach. Sola Dei gloria!



You might also check Pr Arnold Voigt's earlier paper, which is a thorough exegetical study of the relevant NT texts. I think you have to call or write for a copy. Cost is minimal. He's LCMS, so check the Annual. Peace, JOHN

Your Turn / Re: The Bible
« on: September 10, 2007, 07:58:49 PM »
We've plowed this ground before and I can't believe how the champions of doubt want people to believe that agreement on what constituted Scripture was somehow simply did not exist.


There's no reason for doubt or concern. The fact is that Christians everywhere agree on 90-95% of the canon. The so-called apocryphal books of the OT are accepted and not accepted. Same for the NT Testament deuterocanonical. Everyone signed up for one list or another. The Lutherans never did. It remains certain, however, that the 90-95% is certainly canon. So don't let there be any doubt.


Your Turn / Re: The Bible
« on: September 10, 2007, 05:30:49 PM »
The Scriptures are closed today because the decision was made to limit the canon many years ago. I am not even sure if there is a vehicle to reconsider that decision.
Lutherans have not closed the canon. We continue to debate whether or not the apocraphal books should be read in worship.

Have we left it open in reality?  I mean, if all we've done is said 'we're not sure the apocryphal books should be read in worship," (or more precisely, whether they should be in the canon of scripture), then all we've really done is say that "some of the canon" as inherited by Lutherans (and protestantism) may or may not have been included.  Yes, Luther wanted to also rid the Bible of James, but saw no grounds to do so.  The apocryphal books, on the other hand, seemed to him to have some dubiousness as to whether they fit in with the Old TEstament/Hebrew Scriptures  or not.

And as long as I'm on a rant, why do "we" (as in Christians scholars and church folk in general) get hung up on the term Old Testament and often prefer to push the title "Hebrew Scriptures" and frantically rush to correct by saying "rabbis say" as an attempt to disprove a long-held Christian view?  C'mon now, the early Christians were JEWS, and when we gentiles became part of the Church they became "our scriptures" too!  We have every right to read them through the lens of Christ and the Christian understanding of faith, doctrine, christology, etc....

(As I said, as long as I'm on a rant... just fodder for Bible discussion!)

Lutherans may be unique in modern Christendom. Tell me where is the "Lutheran" cannonical list found? Which part of the Book of Concord? During the Reformation period all the confessional families nailed it down. Us?



By the way, that quote on the ministry I posted was from Walther. I wonder how many, who do not know that, might consider such comments about the "holy preaching office" to be Romanizing or sacerdotalist.

Walther himself exhibited the same ambivilance between the catholic doctrine and American congregationalism. He was in a bind after his overthrowing of Bishop Martin Stephan, the first American Lutheran bishop (as the LCMS folks in Randolph Co., IL proudly proclaim).


When people throw that term "sacerdotalist" around...what the heck are they talking about?

This reflects two centuries of American Lutherans trying to balance two doctrines of ministry. (In this respect the ELCA and LCMS are almost perfectly united.) On the one hand we have retained the catholic doctrine of ministry (only as concerns the presbyterate--pastors, but not deacons nor bishops). On the other hand we want to be American congregationalists. The conflit between Walther and Loehe/Grabau were but one expression of this pervasive problem. The Pennsylvania MINISTERIUM (no less!) quickly adapted to reflect the congregationalist side. One strain of doctinal expression in Missouri totally belittled ordination, until.... When the other Lutherans began to ordain women, it changed--abrubtly. Through the years we go back and forth. Doctrinal statements change; practices (more revealling than statements) change. I don't know that it will ever be resolved. In any event, the accusation of "sacerdotalism" is a misplaced argument from one side of the ongoing tension.


The most surprising,,, at least to me anyway, thing I've found on the issue of the ordination of women to the presbyterate lately,,,,, only indirectly tied to the yet to be worked out role of women in the Church and the ancient practice of ordaining women to the Diaconate (up until just before the Great Schism), is that Arthur Carl Peipkorn, while willing to wait till Mrs. St. Peter would surely put him straight on the matter, did not see the ordination of women to the presbyterate as church dividing or an impediment to full communion fellowship.

The sainted Doctor now knows whether or not he got it right.

Perhaps Piepkorn had drawn up some arguments/exegesis on the topic?

Deaconesses, yes. Phoebe in Rm 16:1. That's clear exegetical support foIn Christ,

In Christ,

EE: I don't know of any. Phil Secker is looking though. Arthur Carl did tell me on 4 November of 1973 that he saw no Scriptural nor Confessional reasons to prohibit the ordination of women. That is also to say that he had studied the queston most thoroughly; he was never given to casual and careless utterances.

You might want to examine LCMS Pastor Arnold Voigt's extensive exegetical study. (Availabe from Pr Voigt directly.)


LCMS Convention 2007 / Re: Question 2. Most surprising/disappointing vote
« on: September 04, 2007, 05:46:11 PM »
"The Apostle's Dominical word that women are not to exercise the authority of the churchly office is clear."

OK, someone help me out.  What Pr. Paul McCain considers "clear" is less than clear to me.

Marie Meyer

"Clarity" is sometimes selective. According to Paul women must pray and prophesy with head veiled. Clear as a bell! So, why does the LCMS not allow it? That is less clear. I hasten to add that many congregations, including my own, do allow women to pray in the LCMS. It's just no clear that it's allowed generally, that is if we didn't have congregational polity it might be totally proscribed.
---If only we could.

However, few, if any, have tried to listen to women prophesying, Just imagine---Isaiah in the temple: Mary Magdeline at the Tomb. It was memorable.


Your Turn / Re: Missouri, Evangelical Catholics, and the Antichrist
« on: September 04, 2007, 07:46:06 AM »
Just wondering if anyone would care to offer a substantial response to the German theologians' remarks?

PAUL:  It is not possible. Their statement refers to previous objections they had raised. We don't know what those were. The statement of the 200 theologians also makes the claim the LWF has ignored the opinions of the member churches. If that were true, I would think it more appropriate for those churchs' leaders (bishops, superintendents, presidents, etc.) to make the objection. These 200 are only theologians as I understand it. One thing is sure. They don't like the statment. Others do.

In retrospect after almost 8 years, one can say that it hasn't done any damage. In fact, it seems to me, it hasn't changed much at all.


Pages: 1 ... 333 334 [335] 336 337 ... 339