Lutheran, Catholics "on the way" to greater unity

[Fletch]

Please tell me, Fletch, what "secularist movement" we are involved with ecumenically.  Please tell me what "truth" has been thrown out.

To your first question:  Need we really go over yet again joining with those who sanction of gay marriage, abortion (murder) of the defenseless, twisting Scripture to fit personal or corporate agendas?  To your second question:  The authority of Scripture.  Belief in absolute vs. relative truth.  Basically, "Who is going to be God?  God or man?"

... Fletch

[Brian Stoffregen]

0-400 CE – faith IN Jesus – people trusted Jesus
400-1900 CE – faith ABOUT Jesus – fights occur over right theology
1900 CE – experience of Jesus – this began with the modern Pentecostal experience

Actually, the "fights over right theology" go back at least as far as the early second century - e.g Marcion, - and could even go back to the writing of the New Testament.

Although those early fights resulted in excommunication, not wars with killing faulty believers.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Please tell me, Fletch, what "secularist movement" we are involved with ecumenically.  Please tell me what "truth" has been thrown out.

To your first question:  Need we really go over yet again joining with those who sanction of gay marriage, abortion (murder) of the defenseless, twisting Scripture to fit personal or corporate agendas?  To your second question:  The authority of Scripture.  Belief in absolute vs. relative truth.  Basically, "Who is going to be God?  God or man?"

Married gays cannot be saved? Nor those who support them? A woman who has had an abortion cannot be saved? Nor those who supported her decision? Everyone twists Scriptures to fit personal or corporate agendas. Some of us believe that the LCMS has twisted scriptures to keep women from being ordained (or voting members of congregations). Jesus is the Truth. That's absolute. You cannot talk about Truth without it being in relation to something else. We cannot think or say anything about God without it going through human brains. God being God without us thinking or speaking about God exists only in theory. As soon as it gets real in our lives, humans are involved. Like I've told Lou, the theos/anthropos dichotomy is a false one.


The Universalists present a better understanding of letting God be God - and save everyone regardless of what the humans believe, than the conservatives who insist on some kind of agreement with traditional doctrines before God can save them.

[readselerttoo]

Please tell me, Fletch, what "secularist movement" we are involved with ecumenically.  Please tell me what "truth" has been thrown out.

To your first question:  Need we really go over yet again joining with those who sanction of gay marriage, abortion (murder) of the defenseless, twisting Scripture to fit personal or corporate agendas?  To your second question:  The authority of Scripture.  Belief in absolute vs. relative truth.  Basically, "Who is going to be God?  God or man?"

Married gays cannot be saved? Nor those who support them? A woman who has had an abortion cannot be saved? Nor those who supported her decision? Everyone twists Scriptures to fit personal or corporate agendas. Some of us believe that the LCMS has twisted scriptures to keep women from being ordained (or voting members of congregations). Jesus is the Truth. That's absolute. You cannot talk about Truth without it being in relation to something else. We cannot think or say anything about God without it going through human brains. God being God without us thinking or speaking about God exists only in theory. As soon as it gets real in our lives, humans are involved. Like I've told Lou, the theos/anthropos dichotomy is a false one.


The Universalists present a better understanding of letting God be God - and save everyone regardless of what the humans believe, than the conservatives who insist on some kind of agreement with traditional doctrines before God can save them.

Not everyone will be saved but Scripture says "each one who calls on the name of The Lord will be saved."  The adjective points to a singular noun not a plural.  Acts of the Apostles 2:21.  (Comment on universalist agenda)

[Charles Austin]

I asked:
Please tell me, Fletch, what "secularist movement" we are involved with ecumenically.  Please tell me what "truth" has been thrown out.

Fletch responds:
To your first question:  Need we really go over yet again joining with those who sanction of gay marriage, abortion (murder) of the defenseless, twisting Scripture to fit personal or corporate agendas?  To your second question:  The authority of Scripture.  Belief in absolute vs. relative truth.  Basically, "Who is going to be God?  God or man?"

I comment:
Spoken (posted) like one with zero zip nada experience in serious ecumenical discussion. You refer to "secularist movement" and our dialogues are with church bodies. You draw up your checklist and denounce anyone who doesn't agree with you. This thread began with a discussion of Lutheran-Roman Catholic relations. Do they sanction same sex marriage or abortion?
Good grief!

[Brian Stoffregen]

Please tell me, Fletch, what "secularist movement" we are involved with ecumenically.  Please tell me what "truth" has been thrown out.

To your first question:  Need we really go over yet again joining with those who sanction of gay marriage, abortion (murder) of the defenseless, twisting Scripture to fit personal or corporate agendas?  To your second question:  The authority of Scripture.  Belief in absolute vs. relative truth.  Basically, "Who is going to be God?  God or man?"

Married gays cannot be saved? Nor those who support them? A woman who has had an abortion cannot be saved? Nor those who supported her decision? Everyone twists Scriptures to fit personal or corporate agendas. Some of us believe that the LCMS has twisted scriptures to keep women from being ordained (or voting members of congregations). Jesus is the Truth. That's absolute. You cannot talk about Truth without it being in relation to something else. We cannot think or say anything about God without it going through human brains. God being God without us thinking or speaking about God exists only in theory. As soon as it gets real in our lives, humans are involved. Like I've told Lou, the theos/anthropos dichotomy is a false one.


The Universalists present a better understanding of letting God be God - and save everyone regardless of what the humans believe, than the conservatives who insist on some kind of agreement with traditional doctrines before God can save them.

Not everyone will be saved but Scripture says "each one who calls on the name of The Lord will be saved."  The adjective points to a singular noun not a plural.  Acts of the Apostles 2:21.  (Comment on universalist agenda)

This supports my point: salvation becomes dependent upon a person's ability or willingness to call on the name of the Lord.


πᾶς is often translated "every" or "everyone" as it is Philippians 2:9-11


"Therefore God hyper-exalted him and graced his name over every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee would bow, in heaven and on earth, and under the earth, and every tongue would confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."


This text indicates that God has done something that causes every single person to bow and confess that Jesus is Lord.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Spoken (posted) like one with zero zip nada experience in serious ecumenical discussion. You refer to "secularist movement" and our dialogues are with church bodies. You draw up your checklist and denounce anyone who doesn't agree with you. This thread began with a discussion of Lutheran-Roman Catholic relations. Do they sanction same sex marriage or abortion?
Good grief!

It would seem logical that the truths that Fletch seeks should cause the LCMS to rush into ecumenical relationships with the Roman Catholics. Perhaps theological truths are centered on things other than homosexuality and abortion or even women's ordination.

[SomeoneWrites]

This text indicates that God has done something that causes every single person to bow and confess that Jesus is Lord.

Well, that would be the case after the second coming.  If you're translating "would" to imply "in the future."

[Team Hesse]

United we can to more than we each do individually or congregationally.

This is the part that frightens me the most--the idea "we can do more". Historically when we "unite to do more" it has translated into more death and destruction, including when "the church" has been more united. The Roman Church in its unified days of hegemony unleashed some awful things against the neighbor. Likewise, the Eastern Church does not have a sterling reputation among its neighbors for actions taken during times of its hegemony. None of us think "bigness" is particularly a good thing in most facets of life. Our nation went through a "trust-buster" period against "big business". Some believe today that Wall street has gotten way too big. Others are of a mind Big Labor is a problem. Monsanto is believed to be much too big. One party rule has meant problems for many countries. Too much concentration of power and authority in fallen human institutions peopled by fallen individuals has not meant good things for the greater populace. It is simple hubris to believe these facets of human nature do not apply to the very human institution we call the "visible church." I think one of the reasons God has allowed the disunity to predominate is because it is safer for His people. If we could actually be unified as one as the father and Jesus are one it would be a different story but until God actually does that by raising us to new life, it best remain our prayer rather than become our agenda.

When the church was united with itself - the first 300 years. It was an effective witness in a world of heathens. When the church became united with Empire. Then death and destruction came. As the saying goes: "Power tends to corrupt." The church gained power. A quote I read, but can't remember where, is that the Christianity changed from being a religion we were willing to die for, to one we were willing to kill for. Another author suggested, and I agree, that Constantine's conversion was more about changing Christianity than about changing Constantine.

Thank you for supporting my contention. We live in the post-Constantinian age. Pandora's box was opened. The cat is out of the bag. People think in terms and categories consistent with that age. Some in the church think all would be well if we all were united, but the only unity we know is the unity of Rome we embraced so many  centuries ago. Rome was not christianized so much as christianity was Romanized. We have all returned to being creatures of law, attempting to force, coerce, negotiate, and compromise our way to some sense of a visible unity rather than soaking in the unity provided by the Lord and radiating that same unity out into the world.


Lou

I like what you're saying in theory, Lou.  At the same time, the Pre-Constantinian Church was not without flaws and its unity was compromised as well.  There is no perfect time and place in the history of Christianity.  And all the human systems meant to quantify the Lord's Church are going to fall short in some way.  But those of us who choose to remain in, let's say, a Protestant denomination in the US, are not wrong for so doing automatically, or wrong for seeking greater operating and theological unity among the various denominations and faith groupings.  "Negotiate" is just another way to say there are people representing more than one point of view trying to figure out whether they can come to a substantial agreement.  That doesn't pend whether we're Post-Constantinian or Pre-Constantinian, does it?  Sometimes it can get a little hot, that negotiating.  From my personal perspective, I was asked to leave my denomination, and chose to say No, and was welcomed back with open arms, or something approximating open arms.  Maybe a raised digit.  It's hard to remember it exactly.

Dave Benke

We have no argument. I am a regular attender at our local Ministerial Association. In fact, this year they asked me to be the Vice-president of said association. It can be more than a little irritating at times as some trumpet how many salvations they notched in the last month, but I usually find an opening to mystify more than a few by actually speaking Lutheran distinctions into the crowd. There have been a few "teaching moments." On the ground, local engagement with Christians of other denominations does not bother me as much as the top-down, "we need unity so we can get more done, let's all go solve XYZ problem" type of advocacy I hear coming from too many Ecumenists. When people have united to stamp out some problem it usually means butchery because one never eliminates sin without eliminating sinners.


And I agree the pre-Constantinian church was no bed of roses.


Lou

[Brian Stoffregen]

This text indicates that God has done something that causes every single person to bow and confess that Jesus is Lord.

Well, that would be the case after the second coming.  If you're translating "would" to imply "in the future."

That is a possibility with the subjunctive aorist in Greek. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by F. Blass and A. Debunner, translated and revised by Robert Funk, states: "For this mixture in late Greek, growing out of the futuristic subj. and favored by the phonetic leveling of -σει with -σῃ, -σεις with -σῃς, -σομεν with -σωμεν, etc., which led e.g., to a purely futuristic use of the aor. subj." (p. 183)


Thus, the subjectives can be understood as wishful thinking about the future, e.g., "might bow" and "might confess" or "should bow" and "should confess". Or, they can be equivalent to the future tense: "will bow" and "will confess". This is what is expected in the future. There are numerous variant readings of Phl 2:11 that use the future tense: "will confess". It's possible that a copyist changed it to subjunctive to match the subjunctive: "would bow".


On the other hand, Isaiah 45:23 (LXX) uses the same verbs in the future tense: "because to me every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess God." A copyist may have been influenced by this and changed it to match the OT. (But why not both verbs?)

[Brian Stoffregen]

On the ground, local engagement with Christians of other denominations does not bother me as much as the top-down, "we need unity so we can get more done, let's all go solve XYZ problem" type of advocacy I hear coming from too many Ecumenists. When people have united to stamp out some problem it usually means butchery because one never eliminates sin without eliminating sinners.

My main argument for ecumenicism has never been to "solve XYZ problem." That might happen. Rather, as I've stated, it is our Christian witness to the world that we are to show our love for one another in Christ. We confess that there is one Lord and one faith, and one God who is Father of all, then we should act like it. It is our confession of faith that is at stake when we bite and devour one another we could fine ourselves eaten up (Gal 5:15). This doesn't mean that we don't speak the truth in love when we see errors - and it also means we need to accept criticism from others that are to be offered in love.


I remember when a colleague and I were on different sides of an issue. He never shook his finger at me and said, "You're wrong." Rather, he said calmly, "I disagree with you about this." We never came to an agreement on that issue, but there were many other issues where we did agree - especially on the more important matters of the Christian faith, e.g., the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, the Bible being the Word of God, etc.

[Steven Tibbetts]

0-400 CE – faith IN Jesus – people trusted Jesus
400-1900 CE – faith ABOUT Jesus – fights occur over right theology
1900 CE – experience of Jesus – this began with the modern Pentecostal experience

Actually, the "fights over right theology" go back at least as far as the early second century - e.g Marcion, - and could even go back to the writing of the New Testament.

Although those early fights resulted in excommunication, not wars with killing faulty believers.

So, who's got the history wrong, Cox or your description of Cox?

[readselerttoo]

Please tell me, Fletch, what "secularist movement" we are involved with ecumenically.  Please tell me what "truth" has been thrown out.

To your first question:  Need we really go over yet again joining with those who sanction of gay marriage, abortion (murder) of the defenseless, twisting Scripture to fit personal or corporate agendas?  To your second question:  The authority of Scripture.  Belief in absolute vs. relative truth.  Basically, "Who is going to be God?  God or man?"

Married gays cannot be saved? Nor those who support them? A woman who has had an abortion cannot be saved? Nor those who supported her decision? Everyone twists Scriptures to fit personal or corporate agendas. Some of us believe that the LCMS has twisted scriptures to keep women from being ordained (or voting members of congregations). Jesus is the Truth. That's absolute. You cannot talk about Truth without it being in relation to something else. We cannot think or say anything about God without it going through human brains. God being God without us thinking or speaking about God exists only in theory. As soon as it gets real in our lives, humans are involved. Like I've told Lou, the theos/anthropos dichotomy is a false one.


The Universalists present a better understanding of letting God be God - and save everyone regardless of what the humans believe, than the conservatives who insist on some kind of agreement with traditional doctrines before God can save them.

Not everyone will be saved but Scripture says "each one who calls on the name of The Lord will be saved."  The adjective points to a singular noun not a plural.  Acts of the Apostles 2:21.  (Comment on universalist agenda)

This supports my point: salvation becomes dependent upon a person's ability or willingness to call on the name of the Lord.


πᾶς is often translated "every" or "everyone" as it is Philippians 2:9-11


"Therefore God hyper-exalted him and graced his name over every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee would bow, in heaven and on earth, and under the earth, and every tongue would confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."


This text indicates that God has done something that causes every single person to bow and confess that Jesus is Lord.

It is not a matter of a person's willingness.  It is a matter of a fact that each person who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.  God will make this happen for the person who cries out to God for help or in terms of trust.  I don't believe that the issue is about human willing or not willing.  It is about what God does for the person who abandons all hope in anything other than the true God, ie. Jesus.  This has loads to say about our upcoming Gospel reading for this Sunday in terms of giving up all hope except in the Gospel.  The widow is a true disciple of Jesus as in deny yourself and take up your cross and follow Jesus.

[readselerttoo]

This text indicates that God has done something that causes every single person to bow and confess that Jesus is Lord.

Well, that would be the case after the second coming.  If you're translating "would" to imply "in the future."

That is a possibility with the subjunctive aorist in Greek. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by F. Blass and A. Debunner, translated and revised by Robert Funk, states: "For this mixture in late Greek, growing out of the futuristic subj. and favored by the phonetic leveling of -σει with -σῃ, -σεις with -σῃς, -σομεν with -σωμεν, etc., which led e.g., to a purely futuristic use of the aor. subj." (p. 183)


Thus, the subjectives can be understood as wishful thinking about the future, e.g., "might bow" and "might confess" or "should bow" and "should confess". Or, they can be equivalent to the future tense: "will bow" and "will confess". This is what is expected in the future. There are numerous variant readings of Phl 2:11 that use the future tense: "will confess". It's possible that a copyist changed it to subjunctive to match the subjunctive: "would bow".


On the other hand, Isaiah 45:23 (LXX) uses the same verbs in the future tense: "because to me every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess God." A copyist may have been influenced by this and changed it to match the OT. (But why not both verbs?)

But what does God mean in the phrase before this in Isaiah 45:23 that these words will not return?  Sounds as if the potential is there but may not happen.

[Fletch]

Please tell me, Fletch, what "secularist movement" we are involved with ecumenically.  Please tell me what "truth" has been thrown out.

To your first question:  Need we really go over yet again joining with those who sanction of gay marriage, abortion (murder) of the defenseless, twisting Scripture to fit personal or corporate agendas?  To your second question:  The authority of Scripture.  Belief in absolute vs. relative truth.  Basically, "Who is going to be God?  God or man?"

Married gays cannot be saved? Nor those who support them? A woman who has had an abortion cannot be saved? Nor those who supported her decision? Everyone twists Scriptures to fit personal or corporate agendas. Some of us believe that the LCMS has twisted scriptures to keep women from being ordained (or voting members of congregations). Jesus is the Truth. That's absolute. You cannot talk about Truth without it being in relation to something else. We cannot think or say anything about God without it going through human brains. God being God without us thinking or speaking about God exists only in theory. As soon as it gets real in our lives, humans are involved. Like I've told Lou, the theos/anthropos dichotomy is a false one.


The Universalists present a better understanding of letting God be God - and save everyone regardless of what the humans believe, than the conservatives who insist on some kind of agreement with traditional doctrines before God can save them.

Talk about twisting ...... and straw men ..... You posed a rebuttal to something I did not say.  Again.  But there is always hope for the wayward, the twisted, even those who try to make the gate wide enough to progressively fit their camel through.

... Fletch