Differences in LCMS, ELCA, WELS

[BigNorsk]

We use both words to describe our communion doctrine. Close doesn't mean "well, you're close to fellowship with us, so you can commune with us".

LCMS holds the same practice. And rightly so, as it is commanded by scripture.

Okay then I will scratch off Article VII of the Augsburg Confession since it conflicts with scripture.

Marv

 

[filosofer]

Our prayers are that one day such differences can be resolved to at least allow a working relationship in the ministry of the Gospel with our WELS brethren.

And sistern, too?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Okay then I will scratch off Article VII of the Augsburg Confession since it conflicts with scripture.

Marv

You do realize that the Article is speaking in terms of "the Church", right? This is the invisible Church, not any one particular church here on earth. This Church we do all have unity with, in heaven.

But, since we don't believe the same thing about communion as, say, the baptists, we don't commune with them. Communion is also a statement of fellowship, or agreement, with our church's teachings. If I don't believe what the LCMS teaches, why would I want to partake of something that makes it appear as though I do, and vice versa.

Be honest here...what exactly are you trying to figure out? WELS and LCMS have long had their differences, but we've always had the attitude that DaRev posted about above, that we would love to have fellowship between the two synods. That just isn't possible at the moment. I'm not sure why you're having such a difficult time with it.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

And sistern, too?

Eh, you know, we don't count for anything!!

 

[DaRev]

And sistern, too?

I thought a "sistern" was a hole in the ground with water in it?

Oh, wait, that's "cistern". My bad.

 

[BigNorsk]

You do realize that the Article is speaking in terms of "the Church", right? This is the invisible Church, not any one particular church here on earth. This Church we do all have unity with, in heaven.

But, since we don't believe the same thing about communion as, say, the baptists, we don't commune with them. Communion is also a statement of fellowship, or agreement, with our church's teachings. If I don't believe what the LCMS teaches, why would I want to partake of something that makes it appear as though I do, and vice versa.

Be honest here...what exactly are you trying to figure out? WELS and LCMS have long had their differences, but we've always had the attitude that DaRev posted about above, that we would love to have fellowship between the two synods. That just isn't possible at the moment. I'm not sure why you're having such a difficult time with it.

Well, you both claim to hold a quia subscription to the Confessions. And in Article VII the Augsburg Confession makes a conciliatory statement that full agreement in everything is not necessary to have full unity. And it's not just talking about those things which come from man because those are specifically added in the next clause.

So if you require complete agreement in all matters of doctrineto have full unity, you disagree with the Augsburg Confession. And if scripture requires full agreement in all matters of doctrine to have full unity then the Augsburg Confession disagrees with scripture.

You are taking a statement saying full agreement in everything is not necessary and turning it into full agreement in everything is necessary. Or, you are taking the teachings of someone else, maybe Walther, and putting that over the Confessions.

I would agree that partaking at the rail does indeed proclaim unity. But that doesn't mean absolute agreement on every doctrine. It just doesn't. The Confessions tell us the only unworthy participant in Communion is the unbeliever.

And I would say you do deny the biblical truth about Communiion. When you partake of Christ's body and blood, you are in Communion with the LCMS and every other Christian who truly participates in a Communion service. One body is one body. And I think you do actually recognize that on some level, but you want to deny the full unity that actually already exists. Notice I did not say full agreement. The Confessions specifically say that full agreement is not necessary for full unity.

I know what the response always is, you will now search the areas of disagreement and try to turn them into disagreements on the doctrine of the Gospel, or talk of how they might possibly in some way affect a sacrament.

I would suggest that you shouldn't really worry about this. It's only likely to cause problems for your marriage of if your husband were to agree with this it would basically end his career as a pastor in the WELS. I realize that you really can't examine this because your tradition won't permit it. Leave it to those of us who have a martyr complex or something and don't mind jousting with windmills. Examining it is only likely to bring you heartache and sorrow.

Marv

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Oh, Marv...I don't worry about it at all. I know that LCMS and WELS are both biblically sound in their communion practices.

I think you are reading the article the wrong way, personally.

 

[DaRev]

Close Communion is not about agreement on man made traditions, but rather on not accepting false teachings based upon Scripture. I think the differences between LCMS and WELS are quite subtle as compared to say Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Reformed, or even ELCA doctrines. I wouldn't necessarily have a problem communing a WELS member if they desired to do so, but a good WELS member wouldn't.

 

[Jim47]

The issues which led to the break in fellowship between the WELS and the LCMS are somewhat complicated, and I'm not sure I understand them all.

Our former synodical president, Al Barry, did have a good dialogue with both the WELS and the ELS during his tenure. Since then, the WELS and the ELS have had no desire to dialogue with the LCMS, justifiably so, which is too bad because I would much rather have a working relationship with another Confessional church body than with one who is considered by the LCMS to not be an orthodox Lutheran church body (ELCA). It's kinda senseless to me, but it's the present reality. Our prayers are that one day such differences can be resolved to at least allow a working relationship in the ministry of the Gospel with our WELS brethren.

The WELS would like to have fellowship with the LCMS again, but as it is, things are going in the wrong direction. Our having fellowship with the LCMS without the necesary changes that show a willingness to comply with scritural teachings and Lutheran doctrines would be like the WELS saying those things arern't really all that important.

 

[Jim47]

Well, you both claim to hold a quia subscription to the Confessions. And in Article VII the Augsburg Confession makes a conciliatory statement that full agreement in everything is not necessary to have full unity. And it's not just talking about those things which come from man because those are specifically added in the next clause.

So if you require complete agreement in all matters of doctrineto have full unity, you disagree with the Augsburg Confession. And if scripture requires full agreement in all matters of doctrine to have full unity then the Augsburg Confession disagrees with scripture.

You are taking a statement saying full agreement in everything is not necessary and turning it into full agreement in everything is necessary. Or, you are taking the teachings of someone else, maybe Walther, and putting that over the Confessions.

I would agree that partaking at the rail does indeed proclaim unity. But that doesn't mean absolute agreement on every doctrine. It just doesn't. The Confessions tell us the only unworthy participant in Communion is the unbeliever.

And I would say you do deny the biblical truth about Communiion. When you partake of Christ's body and blood, you are in Communion with the LCMS and every other Christian who truly participates in a Communion service. One body is one body. And I think you do actually recognize that on some level, but you want to deny the full unity that actually already exists. Notice I did not say full agreement. The Confessions specifically say that full agreement is not necessary for full unity.

I know what the response always is, you will now search the areas of disagreement and try to turn them into disagreements on the doctrine of the Gospel, or talk of how they might possibly in some way affect a sacrament.

I would suggest that you shouldn't really worry about this. It's only likely to cause problems for your marriage of if your husband were to agree with this it would basically end his career as a pastor in the WELS. I realize that you really can't examine this because your tradition won't permit it. Leave it to those of us who have a martyr complex or something and don't mind jousting with windmills. Examining it is only likely to bring you heartache and sorrow.

Marv

Marv, you're a really smart man, but believe me, you do not have a clear understanding of this problem. So for me to give you an example, which of the doctrines in the bible did God say we could teach falsely?

That is why we need complete unity in agreement of doctrinal issues. All biblical doctrines are important and its not up to man to say "well, that isn't nearly important as the other doctrines are"

Its only for us to obey and follow, not to cast doubt or teach against what scripture teaches.

 

[DaRev]

The WELS would like to have fellowship with the LCMS again, but as it is, things are going in the wrong direction. Our having fellowship with the LCMS without the necesary changes that show a willingness to comply with scritural teachings and Lutheran doctrines would be like the WELS saying those things arern't really all that important.

The "official" teachings of the LCMS have not changed. What the synod allows member congregations to get away with has. For example, the synod has always held to close communion, but allows member congregations to practice open communion. This is the problem I have with the synod, and it's not likely to change until we have a more Confessionally and ecclesiatically sound leadership in place. Our current leadership is more concerned with politics and power than ecclesiastic matters.

 

[Jim47]

The "official" teachings of the LCMS have not changed. What the synod allows member congregations to get away with has. For example, the synod has always held to close communion, but allows member congregations to practice open communion. This is the problem I have with the synod, and it's not likely to change until we have a more Confessionally and ecclesiatically sound leadership in place. Our current leadership is more concerned with politics and power than ecclesiastic matters.

I feel your pain Pastor. Thankfully the LCMS still has confessional Pastors such as yourself.

 

[DaRev]

I feel your pain Pastor. Thankfully the LCMS still has confessional Pastors such as yourself.

And I do believe our numbers will be growing in coming years, so all may not be lost.

 

[cerette]

The "official" teachings of the LCMS have not changed. What the synod allows member congregations to get away with has. For example, the synod has always held to close communion, but allows member congregations to practice open communion. This is the problem I have with the synod, and it's not likely to change until we have a more Confessionally and ecclesiatically sound leadership in place. Our current leadership is more concerned with politics and power than ecclesiastic matters.

The official teachings alone are not what matter...we also have to look at the practice..how they live out their confession..

 

[keeptrying]

I would like to thank all of you for your posts. I have learned alot. One more question though. If I visit a WELS this Sunday and they have communion would I be welcome to participate? Would I be welcome if I told the paster I am a comfirmed member of the LCMS even though the last church I attended was ELCA?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

In my husband's church, he would probably not commune you. If you were LCMS, attending an ELCA church but wanting to commune in a WELS church, he would more than likely suggest that you take the bible information course first and then becoming a member of WELS.

I would like to thank all of you for your posts. I have learned alot. One more question though. If I visit a WELS this Sunday and they have communion would I be welcome to participate? Would I be welcome if I told the paster I am a comfirmed member of the LCMS even though the last church I attended was ELCA?

 

[cerette]

I would like to thank all of you for your posts. I have learned alot. One more question though. If I visit a WELS this Sunday and they have communion would I be welcome to participate? Would I be welcome if I told the paster I am a comfirmed member of the LCMS even though the last church I attended was ELCA?

No, you could not commune in a WELS church unless you were a member of a WELS or ELS church. I am positive though, that the pastor would be glad to explain why, if you asked him afterwards.

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

I would like to thank all of you for your posts. I have learned alot. One more question though. If I visit a WELS this Sunday and they have communion would I be welcome to participate? Would I be welcome if I told the paster I am a comfirmed member of the LCMS even though the last church I attended was ELCA?

I would say your best bet is to stick with Missouri. Our attractiveness average is far higher than that of the other Synods. Just kidding, but seriously.

 

[BreadAlone]

No..we practice close(d) communion here in the one true church (WELS that is..note the dripping sarcasm). You'd have to become a member in order to join with us in the feast of the Lord.

 

[BigNorsk]

You'd be welcome at a Lutheran Brethren Congregation.

Come on down!

We recognize we are in Communion with you already, even if you don't partake in our congregations.

Marv