Dan Selbo's election as NALC Bishop

[Charles Austin]

I heard Lutherans speak of the papacy, even as currently constructed, as a symbol of the universal church, something to be revered not by obedience but the recognition of history.
I think a “reformed” papacy is probably not practical to consider, but the idea is a good one.
When I have been with protestants on visits to Rome, I am eager to say, especially if the “catholic stuff”  seems to be all they see: “remember; for 1500 years, this was our church, too.”

[J. Thomas Shelley]

When I have been with protestants on visits to Rome, I am eager to say, especially if the “catholic stuff”  seems to be all they see: “remember; for 1500 years, this was our church, too.”

And remember, for 1054 years, Rome was but one of the five Patriarchates in my church.

FWIW at the conclusion of the Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, served every Wednesday, during Great Lent, we remember "Gregory, Pope of Rome, whose Divine Liturgy we have celebrated..."

[Dave Benke]

The Uniate churches are an example of how something might work among Protestants seeking connection; using the historic Eastern Uniates which do not automatically demand clergy celibacy, and which have their own jurisdiction, there would be room for more Word/Sacrament communities to move toward Rome.  The question is whether and how Means of Grace means Means of Grace. 

I'd like to see newly formed groupings like NALC explore those conversations myself. 

Dave Benke

So, you think the big problem we have with Rome is celibacy?

The inverse is the case.  Rome does not have a problem with a Uniate that does not practice celibacy.

My advice is for a new group with a substantial number of congregations (NALC) to engage in conversation with Rome based on their doctrinal and practical determinations.

It would be impossible for the Missouri Synod to engage in thoroughgoing conversations - too much pushback in a highly politicized denomination.  I'm assuming the "we" in your response means the Missouri Synod, unless over the summer you and yours headed over to the NALC.  You can't enter serious ecumenical dialog with a predetermined outcome already in your head, just with a desire and prayer for true unity brought by the Spirit.  The moral crusade level of the Missouri Synod will find alliance in many ways with Rome; that's probably the best that could be hoped for.  At the same time, I doubt the Missouri Synod is interested in some of the positions of Rome with regard to social justice, the seamless fabric of life, and the campaign for human development, all of which move beyond what we perceive to be the true issues of morality to the exclusion of social justice.

Dave Benke

[Steven W Bohler]

The Uniate churches are an example of how something might work among Protestants seeking connection; using the historic Eastern Uniates which do not automatically demand clergy celibacy, and which have their own jurisdiction, there would be room for more Word/Sacrament communities to move toward Rome.  The question is whether and how Means of Grace means Means of Grace. 

I'd like to see newly formed groupings like NALC explore those conversations myself. 

Dave Benke

So, you think the big problem we have with Rome is celibacy?

The inverse is the case.  Rome does not have a problem with a Uniate that does not practice celibacy.

My advice is for a new group with a substantial number of congregations (NALC) to engage in conversation with Rome based on their doctrinal and practical determinations.

It would be impossible for the Missouri Synod to engage in thoroughgoing conversations - too much pushback in a highly politicized denomination.  I'm assuming the "we" in your response means the Missouri Synod, unless over the summer you and yours headed over to the NALC.  You can't enter serious ecumenical dialog with a predetermined outcome already in your head, just with a desire and prayer for true unity brought by the Spirit.  The moral crusade level of the Missouri Synod will find alliance in many ways with Rome; that's probably the best that could be hoped for.  At the same time, I doubt the Missouri Synod is interested in some of the positions of Rome with regard to social justice, the seamless fabric of life, and the campaign for human development, all of which move beyond what we perceive to be the true issues of morality to the exclusion of social justice.

Dave Benke

No, the "we" was Protestants (the referent from your own sentence: "Protestants seeking connection").  And since you mentioned not diversity/difference in doctrine but only that of celibacy, I asked my question of you.  However, rather than answering that question (your view of Protestants' "big problem with Rome"), you chose to speak of Rome's not having a problem with Uniate churches.  And then, of course, came your obligatory shot at the LCMS as simply being too "politicized" (ignoring the doctrinal issues, again).

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Bohler writes (to Pastor/Bishop Benke):
And then, of course, came your obligatory shot at the LCMS as simply being too "politicized" (ignoring the doctrinal issues, again).

I comment (Prepare for a shot.)
Get real, Pastor Bohler. Being “politicized” is, and always has been “doctrine” in the LCMS. The focus shifts, but politics stays.
But we love you anyway.

[Steven W Bohler]

Pastor Bohler writes (to Pastor/Bishop Benke):
And then, of course, came your obligatory shot at the LCMS as simply being too "politicized" (ignoring the doctrinal issues, again).

I comment (Prepare for a shot.)
Get real, Pastor Bohler. Being “politicized” is, and always has been “doctrine” in the LCMS. The focus shifts, but politics stays.
But we love you anyway.

I get it: you do not like doctrine.  You can take it or leave it.  And you have.  So, for those who DO take doctrine seriously, it must be mere politics.  It's the only way you have of making sense of such people.

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Bohler:
I get it: you do not like doctrine.  You can take it or leave it.  And you have.  So, for those who DO take doctrine seriously, it must be mere politics.  It's the only way you have of making sense of such people.

I comment:
You are so wrong. So very wrong. I love doctrine. I often have doctrine for breakfast or (well, sometimes it’s for lunch). And if by “some people” you Mean today’s LCMS in-power conservatives, You are wrong again. I have no way of making sense of such people.
But we love you anyway. 
 

[J. Thomas Shelley]

I love doctrine. I often have doctrine for breakfast or (well, sometimes it’s for lunch).

Aye, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and doctrine; egg bacon and doctrine; egg bacon sausage and doctrine; doctrine bacon sausage and doctrine; doctrine egg doctrine doctrine bacon and doctrine; doctrine sausage doctrine doctrine bacon doctrine tomato and doctrine...nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

[Brian Stoffregen]

OK, so the declaration says that the subscribing Lutherans and Roman Catholics are "able to articulate a common understanding of our justification by God's grace through faith Christ".  But, at the same time, the Roman Catholics say that they have not changed their teaching on justification; that it remains as Trent said (with its anathemas of justification through faith alone). 

So, do you also throw out James who states clearly: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24 ESV)? "Justification through faith alone" is not found in Scriptures. (Luther conveniently added "alone" in his translation.) "Not by faith alone" is clearly a biblical statement.

If you are able to make James fit into Lutheran theology; the same could certainly be done with Roman Catholic statements about works.

So, I guess you are in camp #2 of my above post.

How could any Lutheran not be if we are going to include James (and Matthew) in our sacred scriptures? Those books proclaim the necessity of works/fruit/light shining. They are ket books for Roman Catholics: "upon this rock …" (only in Matthew). Not once does Matthew use the word "χάρις". "Grace," a key concept in Paul and Luther isn't found in Matthew.

     
δικαιόω occurs twice in Matthew: "Wisdom is justified by her deeds" 11:19b = justification by deeds and "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned" 12:37 = justification by words. Quite different from Paul's justification by faith.


A church body that looks first to Matthew as its core scripture will be different than one that looks first to Romans. Both will be different from one that starts with Luke. All are biblically rooted. All are Christians. We have different emphases based on the priorities we have placed on scriptures.


An experiment I've done a couple times: in an ecumenical group that was mostly lay people, I asked the simple question: "What is a Christian?" Their answers invariably differed by denominations.

[Brian Stoffregen]

The opinions of the people who signed the Joint Declaration seem not to be the opinions of their Church bodies.  What can then be said about the JD?  Is it of any effect, if so on whom?  Does it accurately the theology of anyone other than the few involved?  What exactly is a re-envisioned papacy anyway?  What would such a pope do?  This is trying to put a square peg in a round pin hole and it will never work.  Salvation is by grace through faith without the works of the Law and most of us believe James would have agreed with that statement.

You would have to show me where James indicates "without works". He states clearly that faith without works is dead. Is a dead faith really faith?

[Brian Stoffregen]

Pastor Bohler writes (to Pastor/Bishop Benke):
And then, of course, came your obligatory shot at the LCMS as simply being too "politicized" (ignoring the doctrinal issues, again).

I comment (Prepare for a shot.)
Get real, Pastor Bohler. Being “politicized” is, and always has been “doctrine” in the LCMS. The focus shifts, but politics stays.
But we love you anyway.

I get it: you do not like doctrine.  You can take it or leave it.  And you have.  So, for those who DO take doctrine seriously, it must be mere politics.  It's the only way you have of making sense of such people.

For those who do take doctrine seriously, it sounds a lot like salvation by doctrine.

I take math and science and music seriously, but never does that get in the way of salvation by grace. They aren't connected.


I don't take cooking or gardening seriously, but that never jeopardizes my salvation by grace.

[Steven W Bohler]

The opinions of the people who signed the Joint Declaration seem not to be the opinions of their Church bodies.  What can then be said about the JD?  Is it of any effect, if so on whom?  Does it accurately the theology of anyone other than the few involved?  What exactly is a re-envisioned papacy anyway?  What would such a pope do?  This is trying to put a square peg in a round pin hole and it will never work.  Salvation is by grace through faith without the works of the Law and most of us believe James would have agreed with that statement.

You would have to show me where James indicates "without works". He states clearly that faith without works is dead. Is a dead faith really faith?

Exactly, faith WILL lead to works.  But it is not the works that justify anyone; that belongs only to faith in Christ.  That is why James and Paul agree, despite your efforts to divide them.  However, Trent goes further than James by saying that it is not faith alone that justifies (and again, faith WILL lead to works) but that our works play a part in that justification.

[Steven W Bohler]

Pastor Bohler writes (to Pastor/Bishop Benke):
And then, of course, came your obligatory shot at the LCMS as simply being too "politicized" (ignoring the doctrinal issues, again).

I comment (Prepare for a shot.)
Get real, Pastor Bohler. Being “politicized” is, and always has been “doctrine” in the LCMS. The focus shifts, but politics stays.
But we love you anyway.

I get it: you do not like doctrine.  You can take it or leave it.  And you have.  So, for those who DO take doctrine seriously, it must be mere politics.  It's the only way you have of making sense of such people.

For those who do take doctrine seriously, it sounds a lot like salvation by doctrine.

I take math and science and music seriously, but never does that get in the way of salvation by grace. They aren't connected.


I don't take cooking or gardening seriously, but that never jeopardizes my salvation by grace.

Christ's life/death/resurrection IS doctrine.  But I guess you don't see the connection between that and salvation by grace.

[Brian Stoffregen]

The opinions of the people who signed the Joint Declaration seem not to be the opinions of their Church bodies.  What can then be said about the JD?  Is it of any effect, if so on whom?  Does it accurately the theology of anyone other than the few involved?  What exactly is a re-envisioned papacy anyway?  What would such a pope do?  This is trying to put a square peg in a round pin hole and it will never work.  Salvation is by grace through faith without the works of the Law and most of us believe James would have agreed with that statement.

You would have to show me where James indicates "without works". He states clearly that faith without works is dead. Is a dead faith really faith?

Exactly, faith WILL lead to works.  But it is not the works that justify anyone; that belongs only to faith in Christ.  That is why James and Paul agree, despite your efforts to divide them.  However, Trent goes further than James by saying that it is not faith alone that justifies (and again, faith WILL lead to works) but that our works play a part in that justification.

I do not believe Paul and James agree. They are attacking each other. "Abraham was justified by faith," "No, Abraham was justified by works."


For James, if there are no works, there is no faith. For Paul there is still faith.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Pastor Bohler writes (to Pastor/Bishop Benke):
And then, of course, came your obligatory shot at the LCMS as simply being too "politicized" (ignoring the doctrinal issues, again).

I comment (Prepare for a shot.)
Get real, Pastor Bohler. Being “politicized” is, and always has been “doctrine” in the LCMS. The focus shifts, but politics stays.
But we love you anyway.

I get it: you do not like doctrine.  You can take it or leave it.  And you have.  So, for those who DO take doctrine seriously, it must be mere politics.  It's the only way you have of making sense of such people.

For those who do take doctrine seriously, it sounds a lot like salvation by doctrine.

I take math and science and music seriously, but never does that get in the way of salvation by grace. They aren't connected.


I don't take cooking or gardening seriously, but that never jeopardizes my salvation by grace.

Christ's life/death/resurrection IS doctrine.  But I guess you don't see the connection between that and salvation by grace.

Nope. Christ's life/death/resurrection is history. "It happened,." It's proclamation. "It happened." When you start attribute meaning to his life, death, and resurrection, e.g., "by his death we are saved," you are creating doctrine.