Differences between ELCA and LCMS doctrinally, an interesting look.

[A Catholic Lutheran]

Oh, not a discussion of MMPI!

 

Does anyone know if the Rams played today, and if so, did they win?

I need to check on that.

Sorry...  I know I shouldn't but I just can't help myself sometimes when I see something so badly abused...

Don't worry.  A "discussion" implies some sort of on-going and equal interchange which I have not intention of trying to engage in.  I agree, for the most part, that this thread has played out.  It's too bad, because there could be real discussion to be had if we were to really explore the differences between the ELCA and the LCMS, but I agree that was not the intent of the thread nor do I (personally) think that the atmosphere is at all conducive for a real or formal exchange on the subject.

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS

[ptmccain]

If there is an interest in such a discussion, that is, a true discussion of the doctrinal differences between the ELCA and The LCMS, it would have to be conducted in a very disciplined and well moderated fashion, dealing with, perhaps, for example, the doctrinal points of the Augsburg Confession.

The conversation could invite back/forth on each topic of the AC, and how the doctrinal topic is taught and confessed in each church body, not merely how they are cited in official statements of faith.

But, as I said, I think such a discussion, to be helpful, would have to be heavily moderated to present the kind of silly nonsense into which virtually every discussion around here devolves, to the point where you even have people talking about NFL football game results in a topic. Which is to say, I honestly do not believe the ALPB forum is the place where it could be conducted. I think our moderators both have full time jobs elsewhere.

 

[Charles_Austin]

No, the problem is that the LC-MS has - at various times and in numerous ways - officially and with great vigor declared the ELCA (and the LCA and ALC before it) as "heterodox," non-Lutheran and sometimes worse.
     So the die is cast. No "loyal" LC-MS member can begin with any other premise but that we in the ELCA are wrong and non-Lutheran. And we in the ELCA would then have to prove to you that we are not wrong, which is the wrong way to foster dialogue.
     Furthermore, it is clear in very recent discussion that the LC-MS is seriously divided within itself over what it means for them that the ELCA is "wrong." Are we talking with those who oppose all "cooperation in externals" (a curious LC-MS neologism), or not?
    And what of those "moderate" LC-MS pastors who are cooperative locally, even straying (as many do) from official synodical policies when it comes to the ELCA? Can they be in this discussion? Why would they want to be?

[LutherMan]

No, the problem is that the LC-MS has - at various times and in numerous ways - officially and with great vigor declared the ELCA (and the LCA and ALC before it) as "heterodox," non-Lutheran and sometimes worse.

Please specify the 'sometimes worse' with citation.

And we declared that we could no longer consider the ELCA "to be an orthodox Lutheran church body" (2001 Res 3-21A).

[George Erdner]

But I'm not sure how you can be.

I wish I was as sure as you are that I'm not sure that I am confused. 

Actually, it was Richard who took the thread into the direction debating the merits/demerits of using the ELCA.ORG site to figure out what the ELCA believes. But, as I said, this has now, in my opinion, devolved into a circular argument about what is and what is not, official, or where it is, or is not found, or if it even exists.

Which confuses me.

Which is why I said perhaps it is time to shut this topic down, which suggestion has George all grumpy now.

No, the previous time when you called for shutting down a thread made me grumpy, but I didn't say anything. But since you calling for threads to be shut down seems to be turning into a habit, I thought it time to speak up.

Now, you might have instead attempted to steer the discussion back onto whatever you perceive the topic to be.

[ptmccain]

George, you can speak up all you want and be as grumpy as you want about it. I'm not stopping you. But I'm grumpy that you always have to get so darn grumpy about everything, at every point, at each turn, at every opportunity.

But, as has been pointed out recently, you just make me look like a little angel of happiness and sweet thoughts and butterfly kisses, and here's one just for you, George: *smack*

 

[George Erdner]

No, the problem is that the LC-MS has - at various times and in numerous ways - officially and with great vigor declared the ELCA (and the LCA and ALC before it) as "heterodox," non-Lutheran and sometimes worse.
     So the die is cast. No "loyal" LC-MS member can begin with any other premise but that we in the ELCA are wrong and non-Lutheran. And we in the ELCA would then have to prove to you that we are not wrong, which is the wrong way to foster dialogue.
     

That simply makes no sense, unless one subscribes to the nonsense that multiple contrary things can all be simultaneously correct.

The only "dialogue" that makes sense between different bodies of Christians is either to discuss what things they can do together that do not require either side to abandon beliefs it holds as being defining truths, or to discuss their differences with the understanding that each side is going to attempt to persuade the other side to change it's mind.

Given that you can't even define "Lutheran" beyond "Anyone who says he's a Lutheran is a Lutheran", which is pure poppycock, of course you're going to get in high dudgeon if someone says that because you do not conform to the definition of what a Lutheran is, that means you are not a Lutheran.

If you say that you are duck, yet you have no feathers, no bill, no webbed feet, no wings, and cannot swim, fly, or quack, then you have no reason to be offended if someone says you are not a duck. So why do you get offended if the ELCA does not conform to the definition of a Lutheran church body, but simply says that it is Lutheran?

What proof or evidence can you present, other than self-claims, that the ELCA is currently a genuine Lutheran church body?

[Timotheus Verinus]

...
The words are empty Brian. We have come to know that when you say "confession of faith," it means something very strange to us, to many in the ELCA who inked those very words, to  500 year old definitions we were taught,  and the 1000+ year old fathers' writings.

Give examples where I am straying from traditional definitions.

Ok, I'll try.

Brian, can we agree that Dr. Crumley was somewhere in the neighborhood when the ELCA wrote what he references as

"There are seven paragraphs in that confession and each not only states the position of the ELCA but a truth that is also church-defining." ?

Assuming he has some familiarity with what was meant when those words were penned, and maybe you assert that he didn't, he says,

"I conclude that there is no evidence based on the text of Scripture which permits or mandates the change as stated in the new policy adopted at the assembly. The action rather was unconstitutional and violated a part of the Confession of Faith. "

I'm sorry if it seems I am having trouble accepting what you say the words mean, when one who - sort of knew what he was trying to say back then,-  disagrees. Take it up with the guys who wrote the statements. To say this is insanity is an understatement.

But let's try. Forget any cut and paste of other posts. You can answer plainly here. Do you believe that the action violated in part the confession statements Dr. Crumley had some hand in, "as you read those words?"

TV

[Richard Johnson]

But I'm not sure how you can be.

I wish I was as sure as you are that I'm not sure that I am confused. 

Actually, it was Richard who took the thread into the direction debating the merits/demerits of using the ELCA.ORG site to figure out what the ELCA believes. But, as I said, this has now, in my opinion, devolved into a circular argument about what is and what is not, official, or where it is, or is not found, or if it even exists.

Which confuses me.

Which is why I said perhaps it is time to shut this topic down, which suggestion has George all grumpy now.

Alternative suggestion: Stop reading and posting.

[LutherMan]

But I'm not sure how you can be.

I wish I was as sure as you are that I'm not sure that I am confused.  

Actually, it was Richard who took the thread into the direction debating the merits/demerits of using the ELCA.ORG site to figure out what the ELCA believes. But, as I said, this has now, in my opinion, devolved into a circular argument about what is and what is not, official, or where it is, or is not found, or if it even exists.

Which confuses me.

Which is why I said perhaps it is time to shut this topic down, which suggestion has George all grumpy now.

Alternative suggestion: Stop reading and posting.

Just curious here:
What is it about Pr. McCain and his posts that irritates you so much?  He is a much revered and beloved champion of the Lutheran Confessions and Symbols in most LCMS circles.  He even brought CPH back to classical Lutheran orthodoxy.  That is to be commended.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Assuming he has some familiarity with what was meant when those words were penned, and maybe you assert that he didn't, he says,

"I conclude that there is no evidence based on the text of Scripture which permits or mandates the change as stated in the new policy adopted at the assembly. The action rather was unconstitutional and violated a part of the Confession of Faith. "

His is one approach to scriptures. I've argued from a different perspective: there is nothing in the text of Scriptures that prohibits the changes as stated in the new policy adopted at the assembly. I believe that this is a more Lutheran approach, e.g., there is nothing in scriptures that mandates infant baptism, but we see nothing in scriptures that prohibits baptizing infants.

The action can only be deemed unconstitutional and a violation for those who interpret the biblical passages as prohibiting same-gender sexual behaviors under all circumstances. There are others in the ELCA -- and apparently a majority of the voting members in 2009, who understand those biblical to be silent about publicly accountable, life-long, monogamous same-gender relationships. For us with that interpretation, the action is not unconstitutional nor a violation.

[LutherMan]

LC-MS'ers are *not* pietists.

[Brian Stoffregen]

I guess I will counter the whole MMPI thing

The MBTI is quite different from the MMPI. A key differences is that the MBTI is not a diagnostic tool. It doesn't seek to reveal pathologies. It indicates preferences in typical behaviors -- much like being right handed or left handed.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Some believe this, and some believe that.  Big tent....

This is mainly what I end up getting from ELCA.org...

To perhaps steer is slight back to topic: it seems only logical that with eight seminaries in the ELCA, (and without a central theological education committee,) we will have a broader range in our theological education than the LCMS with only two seminaries.

Also related to that is the fact that most of our seminaries grew out of different Lutheran heritages and traditions. Within the ELCA we have the anti-clerical, low church Haugean piety and the hierarchical, high-church piety of the Swedes. Through our history of mergers between different Lutheran groups, we have accepted differences in beliefs and practices; while centering on core convictions that can hold us together as one body. The LCMS doesn't have that history.

[LutherMan]

wow.