DaRev: Tidbits from my husband

[porterross]

she never said it had to do with the consecration --

That is exactly what she said in said in the kitchen, more than once:

We'll have to disagree on who distributes communion. The bible never says that only a pastor can do it. Again, it's the WORDS alone. Nothing the pastor does makes that wine or bread anything different.
It's the same thing with baptism. If I wanted to baptize my own baby after birth, using the water and the word, it's just as much a baptism as if the pastor did it.

There's lots of churches that when a pastor goes on vacation (and they are allowed to do that) and there is no substitute pastors, often the president of the congregation will read the service...meaning he reads the texts and the sermons. In the president's "vocation" to serve the congregation (as with the elders) it reads that he will distribute communion when the pastor is unavailable to do so.

Would you really deny your congregation communion simply because your pastor wasn't available to distribute it?

Again, you're putting the power into the hands of the pastor and not the words. I don't know how you can argue that fact.

And of course, I do believe that whenever possible the pastor should be the one distributing communion. But saying that only the pastor can distribute is wrong and not biblically based.

Is that truly what the WELS teaches and allows? Is consecration of the elements seen as acceptable when done by elders if their pastor is on vacation?


If what is stated here is a WELS position and the words are all that matters, then it does go against what they hold to in regard to women in church. Which is correct?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

DaRev, please point me out to where I said I never wanted my kids baptized in the church...I'm betting you won't be able to, because this is a case of where you're putting words in my mouth.

I want my kids baptized as soon as they're born. Having a minister for a husband makes that very easy.

We still do a service in front of the congregation...you have a heard of a ratification, right? It's the same thing as the baptism, only there's not repeat baptism. There is nothing LESS about it, as you would like to suggest.

I've tried to shy away from pointing out what we see as critical flaws in the LCMS doctrine. I've tried to stick to posting only what WELS believes. That gets difficult when I feel that my faith and my belief is being attacked.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

That is exactly what she said in said in the kitchen, more than once:







Is that truly what the WELS teaches and allows? Is consecration of the elements seen as acceptable when done by elders if their pastor is on vacation?


If what is stated here is a WELS position and the words are all that matters, then it does go against what they hold to in regard to women in church. Which is correct?

NO, it does not go against what we believe when it comes to women in the PULPIT. Women cannot serve in authority over men. There was a time in the WELS where women did serve communion to other women, although I'm not sure of the situation (it was probably in a women's prison or someplace where there are no men) however, because of debate on the subject the WELS has placed a moratorium on that practice.

I ask again...would it truly please God to withhold communion from a congregation because their pastor is on vacation and there was no other pastor available?

I've said it countless times and I'll say it again...to say that an elder could not do this puts the power in the person delivering the words rather than words themselves.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

*sigh*

It would seem I am fighting a losing battle what with DaRev posting what WELS believes and my words getting twisted.

If the LCMS wants to limit their congregation on their communion distribution, fine, go ahead and do it. If you wish to limit your pastors only taking communion at conferences, fine, I'm sure they don't mind one bit.

I'll stick to what my synod believes, since it IS biblically based and thus far no LCMS person has been able to offer me the scripture that says you have to be a pastor to be able to do these things.

God forbid some group of LCMS people get stranded on a deserted island without a pastor, because you guys are just gonna be out of luck I suppose.

 

[DaRev]

DaRev, please point me out to where I said I never wanted my kids baptized in the church...I'm betting you won't be able to, because this is a case of where you're putting words in my mouth.

And I never said that you "never wanted your kids baptized in the church". I asked "why wouldn't you want to?" Go back and read my post again. Who's putting words into whose mouth??

We still do a service in front of the congregation...you have a heard of a ratification, right? It's the same thing as the baptism, only there's not repeat baptism. There is nothing LESS about it, as you would like to suggest.

I have not heard of that word. The LCMS does do a recognition of an emergency baptism before the congregation in those situations.

I've tried to shy away from pointing out what we see as critical flaws in the LCMS doctrine. I've tried to stick to posting only what WELS believes. That gets difficult when I feel that my faith and my belief is being attacked.

The LCMS doctrine is in line with the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions. All I have done is shown you where the practice of having someone who is not rightly called administering the Sacrament is in contrradiction to the Augsburg Confession, which is one of the Confessions of the Lutheran Church. The LCMS holds to the Lutheran Confessions. Your explanation of the WELS practice regarding the Lord's Supper is not in line with the Lutheran Confessions. It's in black and white. There is no arguing this.

 

[porterross]

NO, it does not go against what we believe when it comes to women in the PULPIT. Women cannot serve in authority over men. There was a time in the WELS where women did serve communion to other women, although I'm not sure of the situation (it was probably in a women's prison or someplace where there are no men) however, because of debate on the subject the WELS has placed a moratorium on that practice.

That contradicts the power being in the words, though, so why stop allowing it?

I ask again...would it truly please God to withhold communion from a congregation because their pastor is on vacation and there was no other pastor available?

Is it necessary for salvation to receive it each time we worship? Why can't a congregation wait a week or two? What about the members who are on vacation? Can they consecrate the elements themselves?

I've said it countless times and I'll say it again...to say that an elder could not do this puts the power in the person delivering the words rather than words themselves.

That statement and position is in direct opposition to the Augsburg Confession. That is what you asked Rev to defend the LCMS position by, was it not?

Are you stating your personal beliefs on this or the position of the WELS? No one else in the WELS has stated theit agreement with you on this or that it is indeed what the synod holds to. This is what I'm trying to discern.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

and I quote:

But why wouldn't you want your children baptized in the Church? That sounds very ELCAish to me.

You took my situation and tried to make it out as though I was saying I didn't want them baptized in the church, Rev. That's exactly what you did, and then even worse, you said it was ELCAish. Which is such a backhanded insult.

I'm not going to get anywhere with you, so I'm going to end my participation here. All this thread has ended up doing is making me upset. I know what I believe, I know that my communion is no less than your communion and that my kids' baptisms are valid in the eyes of the Lord, even if they aren't valid in yours.

YOU don't matter when it comes to my salvation. GOD matters.

 

[LilLamb219]

Closing for a cool down period and staff review. This thread should open tomorrow evening if not sooner.

 

[LilLamb219]

The OP has requested that this thread remain closed and staff is willing to accommodate that request as it seems the thread has run its course.