Tangible
Decision Theology = Ex Opere Operato
- May 29, 2009
- 9,837
- 1,416
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
I think it's a great idea.
It would differ from the Apostolic Churches group in that 1) It would include Lutherans
(and others who do not claim direct apostolic succession), and B) It wouldn't have a name that would be confusing to people who use the word "apostolic" very differently.
Where I think we might run into trouble is in allowing groups to self-identify as catholic and orthodox. Here again, people sometimes use these words very differently from the way others might. We would have to agree on specific definitions from the outset, with the knowledge that some will be offended if they are excluded.
For example, if Lutherans are included then are the Reformed included too? What about Reformed Baptists? What about Amyraldian Baptists? What about Arminian Baptists? We would have to draw the line somewhere.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to make the distinction between Confessional and non-Confessional churches. Confessional churches would be ones as listed above which subscribe to established, authoritative, historical, confessional statements - as opposed to those who do not recognize any authority in creeds or confessional statements. Links to the pertinent confessional documents could be included in forum stickies.
This would effectively limit the list to the ones listed in the fifth post (+ OO), in addition to those Reformed who confess and subscribe to the Westminster Confession or the Canons of Dort, but exclude those who do not fully subscribe such as some Reformed Baptists.
Then the only point of contention would be between those who claim to be Confessional versus others of the same Confession who differ in their interpretation and degree of subscription (think Episcopalian vs Anglican or ELCA vs. LCMS/WELS).
Just my 2 cents.
It would differ from the Apostolic Churches group in that 1) It would include Lutherans
(and others who do not claim direct apostolic succession), and B) It wouldn't have a name that would be confusing to people who use the word "apostolic" very differently.Where I think we might run into trouble is in allowing groups to self-identify as catholic and orthodox. Here again, people sometimes use these words very differently from the way others might. We would have to agree on specific definitions from the outset, with the knowledge that some will be offended if they are excluded.
For example, if Lutherans are included then are the Reformed included too? What about Reformed Baptists? What about Amyraldian Baptists? What about Arminian Baptists? We would have to draw the line somewhere.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to make the distinction between Confessional and non-Confessional churches. Confessional churches would be ones as listed above which subscribe to established, authoritative, historical, confessional statements - as opposed to those who do not recognize any authority in creeds or confessional statements. Links to the pertinent confessional documents could be included in forum stickies.
This would effectively limit the list to the ones listed in the fifth post (+ OO), in addition to those Reformed who confess and subscribe to the Westminster Confession or the Canons of Dort, but exclude those who do not fully subscribe such as some Reformed Baptists.
Then the only point of contention would be between those who claim to be Confessional versus others of the same Confession who differ in their interpretation and degree of subscription (think Episcopalian vs Anglican or ELCA vs. LCMS/WELS).
Just my 2 cents.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
