Posted on 04/13/2005 5:50:35 AM PDT by NYer
Washington DC, Apr. 12, 2005 (CNA) - The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America may become the first U.S.-based Lutheran denomination to approve the ordination of active homosexuals as clergy and lay ministers, reported the Christian Post.
The Church Council released a statement Monday with three resolutions that ask whether the church should bless same-sex unions and ordain non-celibate homosexuals, provided they remain faithful to their partner.
The statement has been forwarded to the ELCA Churchwide Assembly, which is scheduled to meet Aug. 8-14 in Florida. Delegates will then decide to accept, reject or amend the three resolutions.
Current ELCA policy allows the ordination of celibate homosexuals but not active homosexuals.
Should the Churchwide Assembly adopt the new policy, the ELCA will likely become the only Lutheran denomination in the United States with official guidelines for such ordinations.
I was raised a Lutheran but converted to Catholocism almost 20 years ago. My mother is still Lutheran but has been complaining about the liberalism she sees creeping into her church. She has almost completely stopped going to church now because of it.
No matter what group or denomination it is, when a group puts aside the Word of God for a "contemporary" moral-relativist agenda, it no longer is Christian. It isn't just schism, it is plain apostasy and a rejection of the Faith.
Only a Viscount.
With no money.
And Catholic.
And married...
The Book of Concord contains documents which Christians from the fourth to the 16th century A.D. explained what they believed and taught on the basis of the Holy Scriptures
The ELCA holds the Book of Concord as a historical document.
The LCMS holds that the Book of Concerd is an accurate interpretation and faithful to the Bible. For Sola Scriptura to be tenable, there must be a standard. The Catholic Church holds that the Church itself is the standard. The LCMS believes that the Book of Concord is the standard.
To be a member of an LCMS Church, one must believe that Bible is the inspired word of God. To be a pastor on an LCMS Church, one must believe the Bible is the inspired word of God and believe that the Book of Concord is an accurate interpretation of the Bible.
The LCMS does not believe that the Book of Concord is equal to the Bible, just that it is faithful.
Apparently the survey left it at that. Not sure why it would have mattered anyway.
Further googling just now located an article that describes a total of 4 questions that were asked -
1. Do you accept Jesus' physical resurrection as a fact?
51 % of Methodist said, "No."
35 % of United Presbyterians said "No."
30 % of Episcopalians said, "No".
33 % of American Baptist said, "No."
13 % of American Lutherans said, "No."
7 % of Missouri Synod Lutherans said, "No."
# Do you believe in the virgin birth of Jesus?
60 % of Methodists said, "No."
44 % of Episcopalians said, "No."
49 % of Presbyterians said, "No."
34 % of Baptists said, "No."
19 % of American Lutherans said, "No."
5 % of Missouri Synod Lutherans said, "No."
# Do you believe in an evil demon power in the world today?
62 % of Methodists said, "No."
37 % of Episcopalians said, "No."
47 % of Presbyterians said, "No."
33 % of Baptists said, "No."
14 % of American Lutherans said, "No."
9 % of Missouri Synod Lutherans said, "No."
# Do you believe that the Scriptures are the inspired and inerrant Word of God in faith, history, and secular matters?
87 % of Methodists said, "No."
95 % of Episcopalians said, "No."
82 % of Presbyterians said, "No."
67 % of American Baptists said, "No."
77 % of American Lutherans said, "No."
24 % of Missouri Synod Lutherans said, "No."
The basic problem with these statistics are that they don't tell anything about who is being polled. While the American Baptists are a specific denomination (separate from the larger Southern Baptists), and the Episcopalians might be identified as a denomination, there is not a single "Presbyterian" denomination. There are at least a dozen, ranging from flaming liberals to ultra conservatives. Likewise, there are at least 3 major Lutheran bodies (none of which is "American Lutheran"), and even several Methodists. From the description, it is hard to tell if the survey actually supports what the numbers purport to say.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
LCMS are the "good guys."
Leave it up to some elements of the opposition force (in this case, the liberal media) to impugn all Bible-believing Lutherans (and other Conservative Christians in other denominations I might add).
We all know that "one-man plus one woman" (for Life) is the ONLY acceptable legal formula and definition of marriage. Period.
I'm getting irritated at all this anti-family stuff and the obvious political agenda they have. The media does not help, plus the liberal politicians don't help either.
I would like to see a complete and total DE-funding and dismantling of every and all institution and organization that supports the liberal left (schools, newspapers, special interest groups, political 'causes' etc). It's not going to happen, but it would be nice to see all their sources of financial support pulled, not some innocent woman or elderly folks on life support.
The West may need another Reformation, at all levels of society next time around.
To be a member of an LCMS Church, one must believe that Bible is the inspired word of God. To be a pastor on an LCMS Church, one must believe the Bible is the inspired word of God and believe that the Book of Concord is an accurate interpretation of the Bible.
The Catholic Church also holds that the Bible is the inspired word of God. The difference is that the Catholic Church recognizes oral tradition.
Is the Bible the sole "teaching from God?" No. The Bible Itself states that there are "oral" teachings and traditions that are to be carried on to the present-day (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Timothy 2:2; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:24-25). These teachings are what the Catholic Church considers "Sacred Apostolic Tradition." This type of "tradition" never changes because it was passed down by the Apostles themselves. It is not the same as the man-made traditions condemned in Scripture. The man-made traditions condemned in Scripture were those of the Jewish Pharisees. In fact, as Christians, we are supposed to disassociate ourselves from persons who do not follow Apostolic Tradition (2 Thessalonians 3:6). If oral tradition is not to be followed, why did St. Paul state Christ said something that is not recorded in the Gospels (Acts 20:35)? St. Paul must have "heard" this saying, not read it from any Gospel or Scripture, thereby, proving that some things Christ said were not recorded in the Gospels (John 21:25) and were passed on orally among His disciples instead, but were just as valid as anything written since St. Paul himself used one of these oral passages in his epistle.
The Bible doesn't state anywhere that It should be taken literally. The Bible was written by different authors with different literary styles at different times in history and in different languages. Therefore, the writings should be interpreted with these circumstances in mind. Christ said that the Church is to resolve disputes among Christians, not Scripture (Matthew 18:17). What did Martin Luther, the Protestant Reformer, state about the Bible? In his "Commentary On St. John," he stated the following: "We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we have received It from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of It at all."
True, it'd be nice if we knew where he sent the 10k surveys, but it was done in 1987.
Regardless of the details, it's still alarming, imo.
More recent surveys of average church goers and members tell a similar story. If you google similar keywords, you'll find that the majority of those who call themselves Christians don't believe in the divine inspiration of scripture, among other things.
And if that's what they believe, you have to wonder what they're being taught. I'd love to see a more recent survey done of clergy, but I'd probably be appalled at the results.
One of my most memorable days at church (LCMS) was when our young pastor took the Bible and held it up in the air and said that others may choose another path (regarding homosexuality) but as for us, we were choosing THIS path.
Absolutely not. There is NO resemblance between ELCA and LCMS except part of the name.
The Catholic Church no more created the New Testament Canon than Newton created the basic principles of physics.
To be included in the Bible, each book had to pass two standards. First, it had to have a history of continuous and widespread approval amongst Christians. Second, it was expected to demonstrate that it had either been written by an apostle or specifically approved by the apostles.
Can the oral tradition you speak of pass either of these two tests? I follow an Apostolic Church. A Church founded by the Apostles. The only information that I know the Apostles wrote or approved of can be found in the Bible.
Has there ever been an attempt to verify your oral tradition can withstand the two tests required for the Bible? I doubt it. Just a pronouncement from the Catholic Church.
Let's take your first examples from scripture to support oral tradition: 2 Thessalonians 2:15. If you read the start of 2 Thessalonians, you will find the letter is from Paul, Silas and Timothy. Now let's read the verse in context... 2 Thessalonians 2: 14-15
14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
The letter was written from Paul, Silas and Timothy; not from the Church. If I could hear the words or Paul, Silas or Timothy; I would stand firm to those words. But all I have is what they wrote, so I will stand firm in Sola Scriptura.
Your next example is even more obvious. The letter is from Paul. He uses the phrases "remember me" and "I delivered". Does the Catholic Church actually think that this means we should follow them in whatever they say?
1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.
I will remember Paul and maintain the traditions that he has delivered to me. Unfortunately, Paul is in Heaven, so the only traditions Paul has delivered to me are in written form. Sola Scriptura.
2 Timothy 2:2 and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
His teachings in the presence of many witnesses. So that excludes secret oral traditions. How can you ask me to believe that key aspects required for salvation can not be found in the Bible? The books of the Bible were written by Apostles or approved of by Apostles. And yet whole beliefs and traditions required for salvation are somehow missing? The only teachings I know came from Paul are found in the Bible. Unless you can trace obscure Catholic Dogma to Paul, this verse does nothing for me. And you can't simple say "Just believe us, we're the Catholic Church."
About Romans 10:17, verse 14 can clear that up.
Romans 10:14 But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?
Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
So people have to hear about Christ before they believe. And someone needs to preach so that the people can hear. How in any way does this support the authoritarian position of the Catholic Church?
1 Peter 1 25 "but the word of the Lord remains forever." And this word is the good news that was preached to you.
Let's read the good news shall we? Straight from Peter's mouth.
Acts 10 34-43
34 So Peter opened his mouth and said: "Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, 35 but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. 36 As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), 37 you yourselves know what happened throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John proclaimed: 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. 39 And we are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree, 40 but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear, 41 not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42 And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. 43 To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."
Not one thing about the Catholic Church. Not one thing about the primacy of Peter. Not one thing about passing down authority through the Catholic Church alone. Not one thing about Mary or praying to the Saints. I am not impressed.
Sorry about the hostility, but I'm really annoyed with the Catholic Church trying to coop the Christian religion. Since I reject the authority of the Pope, I'm not even sure if the Catholic Church acknowledges my salvation. I'm not sure if the Vatican II changed that opinion. Talk about confusing.
And finally,
2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.
Again, the only tradition I have from the Apostles is contained in the Bible: books written by the Apostles or approved by the Apostles. Unless you can show that the traditions of the Catholic Church are directly from the Apostles (or supported by the Apostles), I guess I need to keep away from you.
The Bible Itself never states that It is the sole and only authority of Christianity. The word "Bible" is not even mentioned in Scripture. However, I totally agree that It is one of the authorities in Christianity, but where does It state that It alone is the only authority?
Unless you can show that the traditions of the Catholic Church are directly from the Apostles (or supported by the Apostles), I guess I need to keep away from you.
Not only is tradition endorsed by scripture, but it is simply common sense. All non-Catholic Christians believe it; though, to be sure, they won’t admit it. No Protestant, if he sat down and thought about it, would affirm that he believes something completely different from the earliest Christians that heard the gospel directly from the mouth of an apostle. One may immediately say that that is because he has scripture and has nothing to do with tradition. But that doesn’t work because I’m talking about advocates of sola scriptura that have diametrically opposing interpretations of scripture.
For example: Baptists believe in adult only baptism; Presbyterians affirm infant baptism. Lutherans top them both by believing in baptismal regeneration. Yet, which of them would say that the earliest Christians believed the other denominations’ position? Can one seriously imagine that the apostle Peter went about teaching adult only baptism, and the apostle John went about teaching infant baptism, and the apostle James went about teaching baptismal regeneration?
Contradictory teachings cannot both be "guided by the Spirit". For example, some Protestant groups will tell me that I must speak in tongues in order to prove I’m saved. Others will tell me that speaking in tongues was a phenomenon relegated to past ages but not legitimate today; anyone who does speak in tongues is following the devil. Can both of those opinions be "guided by the Spirit?" How do we know which, if either, is true? Both groups claim guidance by the Spirit and that they are "Biblical."
No Protestant approaches the scriptures in a vacuum. He brings his presumptions – i.e. traditions – to the scriptures. If I am a Calvinist, I will interpret everything in a way consistent with my Calvinist tradition. Thus, 1 Peter 3:21 will not be referring to baptismal regeneration but will be making a point consistent with my presuppositions. Protestant practice is therefore a proof that tradition is an authoritative interpreter of scripture. Protestants assume what they claim is impossible to believe. Catholics believe in sacred Tradition and admit it; Protestants believe in sacred Tradition and don’t admit it.
So you're just going to ignore that every one of your verses was refuted?
Paul repeatedly said, stick to what I said or wrote. Since I've never heard Paul speak, I can safely assume I should stick to what he wrote. He never said there was an authority passed down through the ages in the Church. He did charge others with preaching what he publicly preached, but he never comanded the faithful to assume that whatever the Catholic Church said was authority. 2 Timothy 2:2 only commands the teachers, not the students.
A few links on doctrinal differences:
http://www.elcm.org/comparison.html
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2135
http://www.wels.net/sab/qa/rel-elca-01.html
http://www.goodshepherdels.org/elca.htm
http://centinel.freeshell.org/luth.html
http://www.xrysostom.com/compare.html
http://wanspages.prodigy.net/jrshaw/lcmselc.html
And about differences in denominations... After the Apostles, differences have always existed. As early as 325, there was a great difference of belief in the early churches: Arian heresy stated that Jesus was a created being. The issue was not settled finally until the Council of Constantinople in 381.
If churches leaders could disagree on the divinity of Jesus in the 300s, one can only imagine what other doctrinal differences existed at the time.
And so the Nicene council created the Nicene Creed in agreement with the Scriptures. The Nicene Creed lays out the basic foundation that a church must accept to be part of the catholic and Apostolic Church. The Nicene Creed uses the term catholic (small c) meaning universal, not the Roman Catholic Church.
The Nicene Council deposed 2 bishops because they would not profess the divinity of Jesus. They didn't touch on the method of baptism. They understood that churches would have differences of opinion. They created a creed as a measuring stick. My synod stands up to that standard. We are part of the universal and Apostolic Church.
So why does the present Catholic Church disagree with the Nicene Creed and the decisions of the Nicene Council? My synod, the LCMS, believes in the Nicene Creed. We are part of the universal Church of believers. Why does the Catholic Church claim otherwise?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.