Posted on 05/21/2011 4:46:26 AM PDT by marbren
Not according to the Synod. As a practice Communion is 'close', not 'closed' although it may appear that way. Pastor may commune others in cases of 'need'. Since Communion has an individual as well as a corporate confession attached to it, it is wise to have 'close' communion as a practice.
Yes you are right, I forgot about the close closed discussion, It has been a while.
BTW Don't be concerned. I know we don't agree on some issues but on many we do. I am not going to attack you on FR. Jesus practiced reflective listening as I will try to copy. Most people who discuss these issues on FR are Catholic, Pentecostal or preterist. Lutherans seem to like to stay away. Maybe a wise idea.
ok, let’s test your understanding of the Catholic Faith. what does the Catholic Church mean when it uses the term “co-redemptrix” as it relates to Mary?
you came up with a comparison that is silly on its face. for the pre-trib rapture crowd not understanding “Israel” in the Scriptures is obvious. a straw man arguement is then set up that Catholics teach Mary is great on her own merits, apart from the grace of God. this is simply wrong.
Jesus Christ was not on earth during David's time, but David believed the promise of a coming Messiah and it was counted to him for righteousness and he was saved.
The same can be said for every Old Testament saint who believed the promise of the coming Messiah - they are all saved and are in Heaven. They met God's requirements for salvation at that time and were saved. They believed the promise of the Messiah.
The same is true for the remnant of Jews who come to Christ during the Tribulation. They will be purified through the Tribulation, and will come to repentance, and will be saved. They will meet God's requirements for salvation at that time. Even though they are not saved while the Church is on the earth, just like David and all the Old Testament saints were not saved while the Church was on the earth, they will still be saved.
And, as we know from Scripture, they will have an exalted position during the Millennial Kingdom, they will have positions of power, and they will rule over Gentiles.
So, God has a plan for Israel, He is not finished with them, He is going to save them.
He has not discarded His chosen people.
if someone doesn’t understand the following, they can’t understand Jesus and how the whole Scriptures speak of Him:
OT = types and shadows of Jesus and His One eternal Sacrifice for sins.
NT = Jesus comes and fullfills all OT promises and establishes His Body, The Church on earth to be the instrument thru which the Holy Spirit works by saving Jew and Gentile alike by adding to the Church all that are to be saved. Outside the Body of Christ, The Church, there is no salvation, it doesn’t matter if the unbeliever is Jew or Gentile. You must be “in Christ”, Jewish DNA won’t help you any more than Gentile DNA. Jesus rules today as King, and has given His authority to the Church to teach and baptize.
You cannot support what you believe with the Word of God and therefore we have absolutely no common ground with which to have a conversation.
You simply have no credibility with me. I don't see the point of continuing.
i post to give witness to Jesus and His Church. some are too prideful to submit to being taught, the Holy Spirit will touch others.
As both of us are LCMS Lutherans, we should agree on all doctrinal issues, if not, one of us is wrong.
GiovannaNicoletta said in post 625:
“As we all know, David never accepted Christ as his Savior because the Father had not sent the Messiah at that time ...”
GN now says:
“Jesus Christ was not on earth during David’s time, but David believed the promise of a coming Messiah and it was counted to him for righteousness and he was saved.”
Jesus said:
“How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the Son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Spirit: ‘The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”’ THEREFORE David himself CALLS Him ‘Lord’; how is He then his Son?”
Sounds pretty much like a “personal relationship” with Christ to me.
I leave it to the reader to determine who said what, and who is to be believed.
My dear, Giovanna, you are trying so hard to fit Jesus’ words into your dispensational paradigm that you don’t grasp the plain, simple meaning of His words: David, in his lifetime, called the Messiah his Lord. David believed not just in the promise of the Christ. He believed in the Christ. Jesus said essentially the same thing of Abraham: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and HE SAW IT AND WAS GLAD.” (John 8:56) Abraham didn’t believe in the promise of the Christ. He believed in the Christ. When we humans try to puzzle out exactly how time interfaces with eternity we invariably misthink and misspeak. Christ, who is the way, the truth, and the life, is not in need of any correction, least of all by us.
But, don’t feel too bad, the Roman Catholics have the same trouble when they try to stitch time and eternity together in a way that fits the eccentricities of their theology. They ended up positing a “limbus patrum,” a divine holding tank, in which to kept the faithful of the OT until Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. Never mind that the Scriptures speak of no such thing.
Yes, I know: Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate, the soon-to-be fifth Marian dogma. It means that she actively participated in the redemption of mankind through her assent to God (by way of Gabriel), her cooperation throughout her Son’s earthly ministry, and her suffering with Him at Calvary. All of which is said to be subordinate to His mediation. But once it becomes dogma, as was the case with the 3rd and 4th Marian dogma, respectively her Immaculate Conception (in her mother, Anne), proclaimed on 8 December 1854 and her Assumption into heaven (i.e., she didn’t die), proclaimed 1 November 1950, everyone will have to believe it or be declared guilty of the mortal sin of heresy.
In your second paragraph you employ the phrase, “silly on its face.” Maybe. Superficially it may appear so. But upon careful (i.e., non-superficial) examination, maybe not. The rest of what you right is a product of superficial, if not cursory, consideration. So, I will accord the rest of what you say with a commensurate treatment, that is, none.
Dogmatizing and hereticizing is lofty work, one could say even divine. Yet certain parties breezily enter into it.
Thank you.
My dear, Giovanna, you are trying so hard to fit Jesus’ words into your dispensational paradigm that you don’t grasp the plain, simple meaning of His words: David, in his lifetime, called the Messiah his Lord
You are trying so hard, with the usual obsession of the reformed churches, to "disprove" dispensationalism and desperately "prove" your belief that the Church has replaced Israel that you are more than willing to not only deny Scripture, but twist that words of those who point out to you the simple truth that in the same way the Old Testament saints were saved without the Church, so will the remnant of God's covenant, chosen people be saved without the Church.
Abraham didn’t believe in the promise of the Christ. He believed in the Christ.
Abraham and David and all the Old Testament saints believed in the promise of the coming Messiah. The Messiah had not yet been sent by God - there was only a promise of a Messiah and these saints believed in that promise by faith. They met God's requirements for faith and obedience without seeing the Messiah and it was counted to then for righteousness.
I will give you credit, though. I have had others from the reformed churches try to tell me that Abraham and David and the Old Testament saints are in hell - that they never had a chance for salvation. It's good to see you are different in that respect.
When we humans try to puzzle out exactly how time interfaces with eternity we invariably misthink and misspeak
When we allegorize and spiritualize the Bible into meaninglessness, instead of taking it just the way God wrote it, we invariably assign our own meanings to passages and are blinded to what is going on around us. For example, when we allegorize all the scores of Scripture which make it beyond clear that God has a plan for Israel that is separate and apart from His plan for the Church, we simply cannot accept those Scriptures because, in our own wisdom, we have determined that the New Testament has replaced the Old, the Old Testament is no longer relevant, and we make the mistake of discarding those Scriptures in favor of our own, "improved" Bible.
This then, of course, means that those who do allegorize the Scriptures into meaninglessness are then left to deny the reality which is going on around them, such as, for example, the reestablishment of Israel as a nation being the fulfillment of prophecy and a promise kept by God to His covenant and chosen people. This puts those who engage in such behavior in a state of contradicting God, which is never a comfortable place to be.
But, don’t feel too bad, the Roman Catholics have the same trouble when they try to stitch time and eternity together in a way that fits the eccentricities of their theology.
Oh, that was neat! Religious leftists have the same kind of trouble denying Scripture as the reformed churches do. They pick what they like; for example, "judge not that you be not judged", and just ignore the rest, say, the parts about homosexuality being an abomination.
Those of the reformed churches have the same problem with accepting the Jews as God's chosen and covenant people. Most of the Bible must be ignored and discarded to cling to the replacement theology heresy which is taught in reformed churches. And, since a good portion of the Bible, for example the parts about the return of Christ, are allegorized, those parts are completely meaningless and only need to be thought about when someone posts an annoying article proving that the prophetic Scriptures are inerrant and true and are happening in our generation.
By the way, I've only seen two Catholics in my entire time on this forum who have expressed agreement with the reformed churches in their contempt for the Jewish people and are perfectly willing to trash the Bible to cling to the heresy of replacement theology.
i still have not read anyone on these threads who can faithfully and correctly state Catholic teaching, who is not a Catholic. your specualtion might make a good fictional novel, but it is foreign to any Catholic who knows their Faith.
maybe you will take some advice from me, rather than attacking The Church, your time would be better spent on meditating on John 17 and 1 Corinthians 1 and praying to the Holy Spirit to show you that the Father heard Jesus and answered His prayer.
GiovannaNicoletta wrote:
“You are trying so hard, with the usual obsession of the reformed churches ...”
Huh? You really don’t bother to investigate much, do you?
GN also wrote:
“cling to the replacement theology heresy”
OK, so I’m a heretic?
GN also wrote:
“in their contempt for the Jewish people”
And a racist?
If only you could call down fire from heaven and consume me ...
You’ve told me all I need to know about dispensationalism.
Thanks, and a good day to you too.
Goodnight, oLofob.
I would have agreed with you 100% 25 years ago. This is just a statement of fact. My Father, who I love and has dementia, would agree with you today. (BTW No, I am not saying you have dementia lol). My experience with Lutheranism is obviously different than yours and it is only my experience. I may be holding on to the LCMS by my finger tips at this point in my journey.
I am so pleased to discuss the LCMS with you. I may try to use you as a neutral observer of my journey that my best friend wants me to write a book about. You have every right to answer my questions or not. I will present my walk of faith, such as it is, from my biased point of view.
You seem to tend toward the more conservative side of the Synod. Are you pleased President Kieschnick has been replaced by a more conservative President Harrison?
IMHO my impression of Kieschnick was that he was heading for the liberal PC corrupted ELCA route. Am I accurate in my assessment?
When Martin had the wonderful Romans revelation about Grace and Faith, did it come from his common sense or did he experience a personal encounter with Our Lord Jesus Christ? My vote, of course, is that he experienced a personal encounter. I would even say he was Born Again.
Here is one for speculation: What if Camping is following God's will? The World has been educated about the following verse:
Matthew 24:36 (New International Version) “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
So when Camping says May 21, 2011 6 PM we know it is not true. We know his October date and time will also not be true.
Everyone, Including Jay Leno who said last night "what Is Jesus like the cable company?", is talking about the imminent return of Our Lord Jesus Christ because of Camping.
First answer yes. Second answer I don't know, but am glad he is no longer the president.
OK but, I did not see him going the personal relationship type direction, It reminded me more of the Seminex direction. Homosexual and Female clergy may have been coming.
It came from the Holy Spirit:
“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:12-15)
This is the historic Gospel for Cantate Sunday, the 4th Sunday after Easter. You can check that in your TLH, p. 70. That is, last Sunday. All enlightenment comes from the Holy Spirit through Word and Sacrament.
The mistake so many make is to assume that everything comes at once. As if, when one comes to faith, the Holy Spirit flips the main circuit breaker in the house that is our heart and mind and suddenly all the lights come on. But that is not the way it worked for the apostles, nor for anyone else in the Bible, including Jesus Himself in His state of humiliation. It is more like this, that as we meditate upon the Word of God, living our baptisms (living lives of daily repentance, see the Small Catechism) and receiving the Sacrament, the Holy Spirit goes through the rooms of our house one by one, turning on a light here and a light there, as and when it pleases Him. (see John 3:8) And in our fallen state we often follow behind Him, turning off this or that light. But in the end it is the grace of God that wins out, and enough lights remain on to guide us in life and through life to eternal life.
In the case of Jesus, the same thing happened. With one exception. Because He had no sin, nor was His understanding clouded or diminished in any way, because He was untouched by original sin, when He meditated on God’s Word the lights the Holy Spirit turned on stayed on until all were burning brightly. This Man, when He began His earthly ministry, understood the Holy Scriptures as no one ever had before or since. He understood every verse, every phrase, every word, from beginning to end.
When He, at 12 years old, departed from Jerusalem knowing that He was the promised Messiah, Luke tells us: “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.” (Luke 2:52) Great indeed is the mystery of godliness, that God was manifested in the flesh.
Luther’s understanding came from the Holy Spirit. All Christian understanding comes from the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit works through the Word.
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.