Started by Richard Johnson, April 18, 2006, 12:19:08 PM
QuoteI do not like the term "traditionalist" because it suggests that tradition ought to be upheld simply because it is tradition.
QuoteYour definition shows that this is not what you intend. Even so, I think that "orthodox" is a better word because it suggests the possibility of continuing revelation.)
QuoteSome on the orthodox side of the sexuality issues would be less open to continuing revelation than you are (some fundamentalists, eg), and some might be more open to it (RC Church, perhaps).
QuoteMoreover, I am sure that many on the revisionist side of the sexuality issue give the Bible a much higher status as revelation than what you describe. As far as I can tell, Scripture unambiguously condemns sexual relations outside of marriage generally, and between two men in particular. I believe that one has to twist and turn words upside down to conclude otherwise. That said, I know revisionists on the sexuality issue who have convinced themselves that their view is supported by the Scripture. And some of these people otherwise take very orthodox positions regarding the teachings of Scripture and the Church.
QuoteBottom line: I would not use your defined terms in the context of this thread, in which the main topic is sexuality. They might be more useful in a thread focusing directly on hermeneutics.
QuoteTo "Maybe we need some new categories?" Brian said, "What about ELCA, LCMS, and WELS?"I don't know why no one calls you on this repeated theme of yours Brian. Is it not the case that you are trying to frame this whole thing as traditionists do not belong in the ELCA?
QuoteWhat label would you use for the ELCA?
QuoteWould it be safe to say that a primary distinction between "revisionists" and "traditionalists" is the authority of scripture?
QuoteRevisionist: Believes that scripture is divinely inspired, but to no greater degree than any faithful person of any other time or place. And therefore, a Christian of today is free to dismiss large sections of the Bible as being a byproduct of that culture, rather than divine.
QuoteTraditionalist: Believes that the Bible is divinely inspiried, in order to provide the faithful with a standard and norm for the faithful to follow, for all time. That's not to exclude new revelation, but that new revelation must be a byproduct of something moving within the collective body of Christians, worldwide.
QuoteIt's obvious to me at least that ELCA has both liberal, moderate and consevatives in large numbers so it cannot be labeled as such.
QuoteWhy not answer my question, or give another go at it, why do you try to frame this as ELCA in oppostion to LCMS and WELS?
QuoteI see you trying to set up a syllogism something like ELCA has taken the liberal positin on women's ordination thereore ELCA is a liberal institution hence ELCA members must have a liberal view of Scripture. That is wrong.
QuoteIf this forum did nothing else it would show that there is a large number of ELCA clergy and laity who are not liberal, hence you cannot apply that label.
QuoteIt is a disservice to "revisionists" to fail to acknowledge that they, too, understand themselves to be standing very much upon the Word and within the 2000 year tradition of the church.
QuoteI was not talking about labelling the members, but the denomination.
QuoteWhy did you assume I was presenting the ELCA in opposition to LCMS and WELS?
QuoteMany traditionalists will drink beer, play cards, go to movies, dance, participating in Boy Scouts and ecumenical worship services, etc. While there are some members within the ELCA who believe no Christians should do such things, that is not what is being taught in our schools, nor, would I guess, in most of our confirmation classes.
QuoteEarlier in this thread I observed (and Pr. Kimball picked up on), "For quite some time the Arians were part of the same Church as the Niceans, too. But it couldn't stay that way forever. "Drawing upon that comment, I'll note that the Arians also understood themselves to be (as you say, Mark) standing very much upon the Word and in the tradition of the Church. Nevertheless, they were heretics. And it is truly a disservice to lift up their self-understanding without firmly and forthrightly beginning and ending with the definitive declaration that they were heretics.Similarly Luther and Zwingli at Marburg. Zwingli understood himself to be standing in the Word and therefore offered all sorts of gentle compromises the divided Evangelicals could have a united front against the Papists. But he was wrong about the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar, and it is truly a disservice to acknowledge all the "good" Zwingli tried to do while setting aside that he was denying the Faith.The saying goes, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." The Deceiver likes it when we admire the skill and ingenuity of someone going down that road. But it is truly a disservice to do anything other than trying to turn him around. An eternal disservice.Christe eleison, spt+