Conservative vs confessional

[Systematiker]

So, my first day posting here, and I'm probably already causing trouble...

I notice that the two sub-boards are divided on "conservative" and "liberal" lines, not on status as "confessional" - so where does that put members of centrist or moderate groups that still subscribe quia to the confessions?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

So, my first day posting here, and I'm probably already causing trouble...

I notice that the two sub-boards are divided on "conservative" and "liberal" lines, not on status as "confessional" - so where does that put members of centrist or moderate groups that still subscribe quia to the confessions?

You are in the right place Conservative = Confessional. Non confessional take offense to being called such; hence Conservative and Liberal.

Welcome to TCL and Christian Forums!

Mark

 

[Systematiker]

You are in the right place Conservative = Confessional. Non confessional take offense to being called such; hence Conservative and Liberal.

Welcome to TCL and Christian Forums!

Mark

I appreciate the welcome. Is it still the right place if I point out that the ordination of women isn't addressed in the confessions? I think, for some people that makes one non-confessional...

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

It's not in the confessions because, in the light of Holy Scripture, it has never been an issue, not then; not now.

 

[Systematiker]

You know, I read your signature first and was looking at CA XXIV thinking "what??"

The passages in Scripture are rather a matter of what presuppositions we approach them with. 2 Tim 2,12 for example only speaks to the issue if that's what you bring to it, there's nothing in the passage to decide the ordination of women one way or the other.

That last paragraph, by the way, is a paraphrase of something James Voelz, at Concordia St. Louis, says. Not my claim, but an LCMS claim. Just sayin.

But really, you can land on either side of the issue without distorting the text or introducing a determinative hermeneutic over the text.

In fact, it's one of the only things that keeps me from Missouri, in just about everything else, I'm in agreement.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

You know, I read your signature first and was looking at CA XXIV thinking "what??"

The passages in Scripture are rather a matter of what presuppositions we approach them with. 2 Tim 2,12 for example only speaks to the issue if that's what you bring to it, there's nothing in the passage to decide the ordination of women one way or the other.

That last paragraph, by the way, is a paraphrase of something James Voelz, at Concordia St. Louis, says. Not my claim, but an LCMS claim. Just sayin.

But really, you can land on either side of the issue without distorting the text or introducing a determinative hermeneutic over the text.

In fact, it's one of the only things that keeps me from Missouri, in just about everything else, I'm in agreement.

With what Church/Synod are you now affiliated? Of the Synods which post in this forum, none had, have or will have female clergy.

 

[Systematiker]

I'm in transition at the moment. Probably headed to the ELCM, which understands itself as confessional and centrist. They (in the opinion of some, perhaps grudgingly) do ordain women, or at least accept those ordained in other Lutheran bodies.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I'm in transition at the moment. Probably headed to the ELCM, which understands itself as confessional and centrist. They (in the opinion of some, perhaps grudgingly) do ordain women, or at least accept those ordained in other Lutheran bodies.

Such would require a different interpretive standard than synods that are in fellowship with the LCMS/LCC and WELS.

 

[Systematiker]

Well, yeah, that was kind of my point. I'm curious if that's a deal-breaker for the sub-board (after all, it's not like LC-MS and WELS are in fellowship), especially since you've indicated conservative = confessional for that purpose. I mean, I like to discuss, a lot (job hazard), and I don't want to be taken as someone trying to start trouble or push an agenda.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Well, yeah, that was kind of my point. I'm curious if that's a deal-breaker for the sub-board (after all, it's not like LC-MS and WELS are in fellowship), especially since you've indicated conservative = confessional for that purpose. I mean, I like to discuss, a lot (job hazard), and I don't want to be taken as someone trying to start trouble or push an agenda.

Fellowship posts are allowed. To wit: you basically can't argue with us here.

And we're not supposed to argue in the "other" subforum either.

If there's a topic where you want a little more hardcore discussion on, the main board is the place to do it.

Welcome to CF!

 

[SalusaSecundus]

So, my first day posting here, and I'm probably already causing trouble...

I notice that the two sub-boards are divided on "conservative" and "liberal" lines, not on status as "confessional" - so where does that put members of centrist or moderate groups that still subscribe quia to the confessions?

The liberals take offense to being called non confessional. And with good reason, they are confessional but see them in a different light then we do.