Lutheran, Catholics "on the way" to greater unity

[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?)

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.

The CEB translates 45:23-24:
I have sworn a solemn pledge;
a word has left my mouth;
it is reliable and won't fail.
Surely every knee will bow
and every tongue will confess;
they will say, "Righteousness and strength comes only form the LORD.
All who are angry with him will come to shame.


What God says will happen. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess.

[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.

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.

Humans can't ever fit their camel through the narrow gate, but what's impossible for us to do, God does.

[Dan Fienen]

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.

Ultimately, it does not matter if I think a person is saved or not, it is what God says.

I do, however, think that there is a much more fundamental question here that is not being recognized.  What does it mean to be saved?

One view of salvation has God as the celestial gatekeeper.  God stands at the gate of heaven deciding who to let in and who to send away.  If God decides to let everyone in no matter what they believe or who they worship or what they do, who are we to gainsay?  Similar to this is the Theme Park Heaven.  Heaven is like a marvelous theme part that has an impossibly high entrance fee.  But God through Christ is giving away free tickets so that those who cannot make the entrance fee (requirements) on their own, still get in.  Naturally the point of going to a Theme Park is to enjoy the attractions of the Theme Park, not to hang out with the Owner or Manager.

But this is not what I read in the Bible.  Heaven is not a place that we all want to go no matter who happens to own it or run it.  Heaven is ultimately being with God.  For all that heaven is at times described as a luxurious place, most often talk of heaven involves being with God.  To reject the one, true God is to reject heaven.  Rejecting God doesn't disqualify you for heaven or get you kicked out, that rejection rejects heaven itself since heaven is being with God. 

We read in 2 Corinthians 5:18-21; "18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19  that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20  Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21  For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

God reconciled the world to himself in Christ, willing to accept us despite our sin, but the other side of this is the call for us to be reconciled to God.  Ephesians 2:8-9  "8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9  not a result of works, so that no one may boast."  Faith brings us the grace that reconciles us to God and that faith is not our work but God's.  Similarly, we are reconciled to God through faith in Him, that faith also is God's work not ours.
 

[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.

Humans can't ever fit their camel through the narrow gate, but what's impossible for us to do, God does.

I do believe you either misread or read something I did not say into what I wrote, or are purposely engaged in more twisting.  I'm done.  This is like trying to nail Greek yoghurt to the wall.   Peace brother, have your fun, and I hope the Last Day is a good one for you.

... F

[Brian Stoffregen]

I do, however, think that there is a much more fundamental question here that is not being recognized.  What does it mean to be saved?

That's is a good question. σῴζω carries the sense of "to save" or "to rescue" from danger. Not so much as an entrance into heaven  except that it is not eternal punishment.   

[David Garner]

In reviewing the document, something I found interesting is that the vast majority of the remaining disagreements, however classified, dealt with basic ecclesiology and Church structure.

Something I've said almost since becoming an Orthodox catechumen is that ecclesiology, not justification, is what divides us from Lutherans.  It appears Catholics see it roughly the same way.  I'm not sure how that divide will ever be bridged, but I certainly pray it might be.  Unfortunately (and I say this because I know what a great concession it would be, not because I do not wish for unity), I think Lutherans accepting the same basic ecclesiology Orthodox and Catholics hold to would mean they cease being Lutheran.  And from our perspective, we would cease to be Church if we accepted yours.  That bridge will be difficult to cross, IMHO.

[Charles Austin]

From National Catholic News Service, the news agency of the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference:

http://www.catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2015/catholic-lutheran-document-sums-up-agreements-maps-steps-to-full-unity.cfm

[LutherMan]

What 50 years of talks between Catholics and Lutherans looks like

http://www.catholicsun.org/2015/11/04/what-50-years-of-talks-between-catholics-and-lutherans-looks-like/

[Dave Benke]

What 50 years of talks between Catholics and Lutherans looks like

http://www.catholicsun.org/2015/11/04/what-50-years-of-talks-between-catholics-and-lutherans-looks-like/

Thanks for this - I have been involved with this in the past, and will be attempting to do more in the future now that I'm more fully back in parish work: 
Parishes should establish “covenants” with each other by praying for each other at the Sunday liturgy. The declaration emphasized that Catholic and Lutheran clergy should pray together regularly and make regular retreats in manifestation of the “real, if imperfect, communion with each other.”

Dave Benke

[LutherMan]

http://onenewsnow.com/church/2015/11/09/new-catholic-lutheran-declaration-doesnt-mean-much

CHURCH
New Catholic-Lutheran declaration doesn't mean much
Monday, November 9, 2015
 |
Bill Bumpas (OneNewsNow.com)
Facebook8TwitterEmailMore

church pewsThe head of a conservative religious think tank believes the joint document issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America with 32 statements of agreement about church, ministry, and Eucharist is pretty much a yawner.

According to a press release on the "declaration on the way to full unity," the announcement of the joint document came on the eve of the anniversary of Martin Luther's posting the 95 theses and provides a unique snapshot of progress made in Catholic-Lutheran dialogues worldwide.

But "who cares?" basically sums up the reaction from Mark Tooley, president of The Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD).

"I don't think it's very important, and I would question how many official bishops and others in the ELCA even take their own doctrines very seriously," he responds. "They are a theologically liberal church and have been affected by 20th century theological liberalism that essentially reinterprets what Christian doctrine means -- typically more into metaphor than anything concrete."

Tooley adds that the average churchgoer will be completely unaware of this agreement.

Tooley, Mark (IRD)"The [ECLA] is in fast decline, and its decline accelerated when it compromised its teachings on marriage and sexuality," the IRD president asserts. "So obviously, it's at odds with the Catholic Church on those important topics. It's just another declining old-line denomination that no longer has a lot of cultural or spiritual influence."

"It's just part of their outreach to dialogue with various Protestant communions in this country and around the world," he comments regarding the Catholic Bishops. "So I doubt there's anyone in the Vatican who gave this particular document more than 90 seconds of thought -- just another day."

Tooley adds that a conversation between Catholic bishops and the more conservative Lutheran Church Missouri Synod would be more significant, but he is not aware of any such dialogue.

[Charles Austin]

What is a yawner is whatever the IRD writes about any major denomination, for they have nurtured a hatred for "mainline" churches for decades.

[MJohn4]

What is a yawner is whatever the IRD writes about any major denomination, for they have nurtured a hatred for "mainline" churches for decades.

Hatred, or accountability? It's all in the eyes of the beholder.

[George Erdner]

Does the fact that the phrase "on the way" in the title of this thread is written with scare quotes mean that it is being used in an ironic sense?

[Steverem]

What is a yawner is whatever the IRD writes about any major denomination, for they have nurtured a hatred for "mainline" churches for decades.

"Where there is charity and wisdom, there is neither fear nor ignorance."  - Francis of Assisi

Here is hoping Charles is able to nurture the former two traits.  Alas, the latter appear to be in the ascendancy - particularly as they relate to his views of the IRD.

[Charles Austin]

I have known the IRD since its beginning. For years, I had no real "opinion" on the nature of the organization and thought I understood its raison d'etre. I now have an opinion and I believe it is a self-serving, possibly even hate-filled organization who desires to inflict as much harm as it can on a large segment of American Christianity. But I also see that it has had relatively little influence, despite its sometimes bombastic declarations.