Author Topic: Recommendation 3 Defeated  (Read 10452 times)

ROB_MOSKOWITZ

  • Guest
Re: Recommendation 3 Defeated
« Reply #30 on: August 20, 2005, 10:06:39 AM »
Hence you can see from your own example in the Apology that the reformers had the choice to accept the Bishops but chose not to.   Thus the human right to accept or not to.

You will also see that the distinction between pastor and bishop is human but the churches right to call and ordain is divine.

Im not sure why your LCMS friend could not point this out to you?   Its all there and as such the other Lutheran churches you mentioned have exercised their right to not accept the human office of bishops and the HE.

Like wise WA according to the BOC as seen in a continuous understanding retains the divine right to call and ordain in the face of what they consider heresy.

Its pretty simple.

ROB_MOSKOWITZ

  • Guest
Re: Recommendation 3 Defeated
« Reply #31 on: August 20, 2005, 10:11:53 AM »
Quote
This discussion (as well as the new topic started today on "Bishop Hanson and Scripture) embodies what I submit is the essense of the conflict in the ELCA and ECUSA.    The real question isn't homosexuality;  it is just that the question of homosexuality brings out the real question:  Is there to be a generally agreed upon interpretation of the Bible within one church,  or is there room for a great variety of Biblical interpretations within one church?

By attacking the literalist interpretation of scripture,  Bishop Hanson,  and others appear to be arguing for a great variety of Biblical interpretations.   At the same time we are urged to stay UNITED in spite of different positions on this question.   But if the calls for "unity unity" are to be heeded,  the result will be that some individuals will be coerced to participate in and/or support what they really don't value or believe in.    And I submit that a church that agrees that there is room for a great variety of interpretations will soon be "A jack-of-all-views and master of none".     If that condition is allowed to continue for an extended period of time,   many people will eventually walk away,  for a house divided cannot stand.  

Dave Storhaug


Dave you are absolutely right!!!!!    I cannot emphasis how important this is.   Bp Hanson has declared the literal understanding of the Word the enemy.    This combined with the revisionist movement will unravel the ELCA as a church.    For Lutherans the Church is based upon the Word in its purity and the Sacrament administered according to the Word.
What does it now mean that no part of the book can be taken literally?   To me this is actually the most decisive action taken at the CWA.   The outlawing of literal interpretation and the acceptance of revision.    Where is the purity?   Where is the church.

ROB_MOSKOWITZ

  • Guest
Re: Recommendation 3 Defeated
« Reply #32 on: August 20, 2005, 11:14:03 AM »
Quote

http://www.alpb.org/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=Assembly;action=display;num=1124213054;start=15#23
Consequently, according to divine right it is the office of the bishop to preach the gospel, to forgive sin, to judge doctrine and reject doctrine that is contrary to the gospel, and to exclude from the Christian community the ungodly whose ungodly life is manifest—not with human power but with God’s Word alone. That is why parishioners and churches owe obedience to bishops, according to this saying of Christ (Luke 10[:16*]): “Whoever listens to you listens to me.”
I did want to add The Book Of Concord, AC Art XXVIII p84 Tappert.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2006, 10:47:36 PM by ROB_MOSKOWITZ »

hansen

  • Guest
Re: Recommendation 3 Defeated
« Reply #33 on: August 26, 2005, 08:55:32 PM »
An interesting tid-bit I heard tonight, is that if the ELCA were to allow same-sex marriage and/or ordination, then all of these reciprocal relationships/associations that our synods have with Lutheran synods in Asia and Africa, would be toast.  They've been following the turn of events over here -- very closely -- and that would be the last straw.  They would cut the ties.

That comes from reliable American sources who have personal and professional contact with leaders and ordinary folks in those parts of the world.

Gladfelteri

  • Guest
Re: Recommendation 3 Defeated
« Reply #34 on: August 27, 2005, 07:55:59 AM »
My denomination, the ECCL ( http://www.ecclnet.org ) has an ethnic African (Sudan, NW Uganda, NE Congo) contingent with ethnic Sudanese senior clergy guiding our operations there from this country.  We are active in the Sudan (Khartoum and the extreme South of the country) and our Vicar General for African Churches has excellent and highly reliable contacts in those 3 countries from the village level to the highest levels of the Sudanese and Ugandan government.  And you are absolutely right ! 

If the ELCA were to allow same-sex marriage either directly or indirectly under the umbrella of "providing pastoral care to same-sex couples as the result of the adoption of a "report by a commission of Bishops or any others; and/or if ordination of active, non-celibate homosexuals were adopted or "winked at," relations with at least sub-Saharan Lutheran Churches - at least in the nations mentioned above - would be toast.  That would benefit us, because it will accellerate the growth of the ECCL in those countries  ;D, but bad for the ELCA.   :'(

Speaking to the ELCA, to quote a song Aretha Frankllin sung in the first Blues Brother's movie:  "THINK (Think, think) 'bout what you tryin' ta do to me . . ." before you go down that road and adopt these things . . .   8)
« Last Edit: August 27, 2005, 08:51:42 AM by Gladfelteri »

Gladfelteri

  • Guest
tRe: Recommendation 3 Defeated
« Reply #35 on: August 27, 2005, 08:01:53 AM »
The fact remains that at the start of his career as a reformer, Fr. Martin Luther did not want to chance the Church's polity, and would not have.  He had other fish to fry.  Early in his career, Luther did not really see the historic Episcopacy and the canonical polity as an issue per se.  It only became an issue when it was denied to his movement.  And then he had to shift gears to keep in operation under "emergency conditions."  It never was an issue in Sweden because the episcopacy there supported Lutheranism.  Otherwise the Swedish Church would not have retained their historic Apostolic Succession.  

Even though he came up with the "desert island" analogy, it did not become the preferred, desirable polity until some time later (not too long actually) John Calvin picked up on this and Calvin's development of this made it the preferred desirable polity for the Geneva Reformation and this was imported back into Lutheranism by those who saw good things coming out of Geneva  ???  As if anything good could come from Geneva with its Reformation led by a layman and a lawyer who for all his obvious genius, saw things from the perspective of a layman and a lawyer. . .  ???  (Just to know what the competition is up to I have read and studied Calvin's Institutes, and both perspectives are obvious throughout.  To be fair, that document is as logical as, and reads like a well thought-out legal brief, and Calvin saw a lot of things most clerics of his day - including Luther -  would or could not.)  This from a person who is no fan of Calvin !   >:(
« Last Edit: August 27, 2005, 09:02:09 AM by Gladfelteri »

Gladfelteri

  • Guest
Re: Recommendation 3 Defeated
« Reply #36 on: August 27, 2005, 08:34:50 AM »
Quote
Hence you can see from your own example in the Apology that the reformers had the choice to accept the Bishops but chose not to.   Thus the human right to accept or not to.
Close, Rob, but no see-gar.   ;)  The reformers did not have any choice to accept or not accept Bishops.  That decision was made for them by the Roman Catholic Church and its "Enforcers," the Inquisition and the Emperor.  The episcopacy was deliberately witheld from them.  

Those who witheld the ordination of Bishops for Luther's "renewal movement" were, by that action,  oppressors of the Church; and the Church had (and has) an inherent right to do whatever is necessary to continue to operate under "temporary emergency conditions" until that historic episcopate and the canonical ploity associated with it is restored.  Now, in some corners of Lutheranism, at least, it has been restored (and the Swedes never lost it.)

Keep in mind that Lutheranism is not a monolith.  There is a broad pectrum within it from "essentially Catholic" to "essentially evangelical fundamentalist Protestant" (as someone - Pr. Zip maybe ?? put when referring to one of the smaller Synods, "long on 'evangelical' and short on 'Lutheran'") with a broad spectrum of positions in between.

Evangelical Catholics like us tend to consider ourselves Catholic, not Protestants (not Roman, but still Catholics nonetheless.)  And we focus on the positions of the young, "Catholic Luther."  To many of us, Luther was at the top of his game around 1520 when he was interrogated by  Cardinal Cajetan, not later.  Evangelical Catholic Lutherans tend to be distinctly unfriendly to Calvlinism and see as one of Lutheranism's greatest problems, that "we have made it hard to see the Wittenberg Skyline without that of Geneva blocking the view."

Word Alone and other Confessing Evangelical Lutherans tend to consider themselves Protestants, believe that Luther grew and learned as his career developed and was at the top of his game at the end of his life, and focus on the positions of the old, "Protestant Luther."  Confessing Evangelicals, in my experience, are also not so quick to condemn John Calvin and his insights.

This is neither good or bad.  It is simply how it is.

Keep in mind that what I write is from the perspective of a biblically, theologically and socially conservative person at the far "Catholic" edge of Evangelical Catholic Lutheranism.  Just as I recognize (and respect) your positions as those of a biblically, theologically and socially conservative person well within the Protestant - oriented, Confessing Evangelical camp.  

Neither of us are going to change the other's mind, and arguing about positions where we know we are going to continue to strongly disagree strongly accomplishes nothing except make for some interesting reading, "bug" our gentle moderators, and make them post "nastygrams . . ."  :-X  I suspect that this does not help our moderator's blood pressure  ;)  or serve the Cause of Christ particularly well.  :-/

I think it is better to focus on the very wide variety of issues on which, as  biblically, theologically and socially conservative Lutherans (regardless of which "party" we are part of) we do in fact agree.  That does serve the Cause of Christ.   :D 
« Last Edit: August 29, 2005, 09:12:18 AM by Gladfelteri »