Elca

[SPALATIN]

From now on I will no longer consider the E?CA Lutheran. Especially in light of the compromise that the church has made and will make in light of the BoC. They are discussing in a thread on their forum the subject of Confession-olatry. They feel that we put on par scripture with the confessions.

I think they feel that we treat our confessions the same way that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox treat Tradition.

I feel they don't take them seriously enough. They constantly are ready to unsin sin in their desire to have unity for the sake of unity. They are truly a heterodox synod and no longer worthy of using the name Lutheran in anything that they do. Since this is on my forum I expect it not to be deleted.

I make only one apology to two persons whom I consider to be an exception to this and that is Danhead and MusicforHymn.

Just to set this straight The Word of God is the norma normans and the Book of Concord is the Normans normatta. It is an exposition of the Christian faith only. If one studies the Book of Concord they will realize that it is totally scriptural in content and context. I make no apologies for what I believe, but I apologetically defend my faith to my death.

 

[Melethiel]

E?CA? Have you been reading Bunnie Diehl's blog?

 

[SPALATIN]

E?CA? Have you been reading Bunnie Diehl's blog?

Never heard of her. I am taking a clue from LQ who refers to one of their own synods as the LC?S. Only those who subscribe aquia to the confessions should be allowed to call themselves Lutheran.

 

[Protoevangel]

From now on I will no longer consider the E?CA Lutheran. Especially in light of the compromise that the church has made and will make in light of the BoC. They are discussing in a thread on their forum the subject of Confession-olatry. They feel that we put on par scripture with the confessions.

I think they feel that we treat our confessions the same way that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox treat Tradition.

I feel they don't take them seriously enough. They constantly are ready to unsin sin in their desire to have unity for the sake of unity. They are truly a heterodox synod and no longer worthy of using the name Lutheran in anything that they do. Since this is on my forum I expect it not to be deleted.

I make only one apology to two persons whom I consider to be an exception to this and that is Danhead and MusicforHymn.

Just to set this straight The Word of God is the norma normans and the Book of Concord is the Normans normatta. It is an exposition of the Christian faith only. If one studies the Book of Concord they will realize that it is totally scriptural in content and context. I make no apologies for what I believe, but I apologetically defend my faith to my death.

No apology necessary Scott. I do not necessarily disagree with you. The ELCA as a whole has strayed from Lutheranism and from Scripture.

The attack over there is out of line and clearly a straw man. They are building a case that no one represents, and parading around, showing off how they can tear down that false argument.

 

[LilLamb219]

If one studies the Book of Concord they will realize that it is totally scriptural in content and context.

I agree with that! The BOC is a true exposition of what the Bible says. Read the Bible then read the Book of Concord and see that the latter is in full agreement with the first. How could that be idolatry? It's like having Cliffnotes

 

[Tetzel]

I disagree. The ELCA is Lutheran because the fundamental doctrines which it upholds are Lutheran. The ELCA subscribes to the Augsburg confession. As a convert to the LCMS, the instruction course was not greatly different from the teachings of the ELCA except on the issues of Historical Criticism, women in clergy, and a generally more strict approach to current affairs. On the matters of how salvation happens, what the sacrament of the altar is, what baptism is, and other things like single predestination the ELCA is in agreement with other branches of Lutheranism. In fact, when I borrow books from my pastor often they are written by theologians of the ELCA, similarly when my mother was serving as the head of Christian Education in an ELCA church she often ordered publications from Concordia because she felt that they better illustrated the teachings that her church but did not contradict the ELCA's teachings.

 

[Jim47]

Not that it matters, but I agree with Scott. I know a Menonite lady, although her church is not Menonite as we know it, she is more Lutheran than most of what I have seen from the ELCA members here. I certainly don't hold hard feelings of any of them, I am saddened over their basically wanting to re-write the Bible to feel their current life needs.


God warned us about changing His Word, but they choose to go around it by all kinds of different roads.

I have always admired Dan for his un-wavering stand for the truth according TO God's Word. I hope some day that they will see their errors.

 

[lakesidelady]

The Word of God is the norma normans and the Book of Concord is the Normans normatta.

Scott, what do these words mean?

I've heard this about the ELCA before. How do they differ from LCMS? I'd like to know how to answer people who say that there is no basic difference between the two.

Thanks!

 

[Music4Hym777]

The Word of God is the norma normans and the Book of Concord is the Normans normatta.

Scott, what do these words mean?

I've heard this about the ELCA before. How do they differ from LCMS? I'd like to know how to answer people who say that there is no basic difference between the two.

Thanks!

Yes, there are major differences, the ELCA has strayed away from "real" Lutheranism for the most part (there a few exceptions of churches). I know this because I may say I am ELCA because thats what it says on the church sign, but I am VERY LCMS in view, I have been too both churches and it is only because my fiance is planning on going to seminary to be an ELCA pastor that I am staying ELCA, otherwise, I would be at an LCMS church.

Major differences are

1. Women as pastors (ELCA says yes, LCMS says no)
2. Open Communion (ELCA says yes, LCMS says no)
3. Womens right to choose (ELCA says yes, LCMS says no)
4. Confession and absolution are seen alot more in the LCMS then the ELCA
5. Confirmation, the ELCA has become really relaxed and really hardly uses the Small Catechism. Where as the LCMS holds really hard too it.
6. The ELCA fellowships with other denominations, where as the LCMS sticks to being in altar communion with only CERTAIN Lutheran synods (if any).

I am sure their are more, but I cant think of them off of the top of my head.

No apology necessary Scott. I do not necessarily disagree with you. The ELCA as a whole has strayed from Lutheranism and from Scripture.

The attack over there is out of line and clearly a straw man. They are building a case that no one represents, and parading around, showing off how they can tear down that false argument.

I agree completely with you Dan, there is no need for Scott to apologize for his beliefs (as long as they stay in here ). I agree with most of them, as well.

 

[Tetzel]

Major differences are

1. Women as pastors (ELCA says yes, LCMS says no)
2. Open Communion (ELCA says yes, LCMS says no)
3. Womens right to choose (ELCA says yes, LCMS says no)
4. Confession and absolution are seen alot more in the LCMS then the ELCA
5. Confirmation, the ELCA has become really relaxed and really hardly uses the Small Catechism. Where as the LCMS holds really hard too it.
6. The ELCA fellowships with other denominations, where as the LCMS sticks to being in altar communion with only CERTAIN Lutheran synods (if any).

I still think these are really more issues of discipline, practice and of synod history than they are issues of theology. If you want me to believe that the ELCA is not Lutheran, then I need to see fundamental differences of doctrine. For example points #6 and #2 are probably results of the fact that the LCMS was once filled with Saxon immigrants who were upset at the Prussian government's creation of the German "Evangelische Kirche" that compelled Lutherans and Calvinists to be in fellowship. With such a background, it is easy to see why the LCMS tends to shun interaction with other denominations.

The ELCA on the other hand is the result of many years of consolidating small Lutheran groups that usually had a different history. Germans of the 1700's or later Germans not particularly bothered by the Evangelische compulsion, Swedish, Norwegian, Finnish, Danish, Slovak and Latvian Lutherans had all formed their own micro-synods. During the 20th Century as these groups assimilated more to America and learned English, it was realized that they no longer had linguistic reasons to stay apart. To the ELCA joining together has been the trend for a long time and they feel comfortable with it.

If the ELCA was talking about making a decision for Christ or re-instituting the Roman church's sacrament of Pennance, I'd see that as a repudiation of the Evangelical Lutheran Faith. But when you look at so many of the essential questions when it comes to classification of a denomination such as: What baptism is, what the sacrament of the altar is, how man is justified, how one should confess sins, what the ultimate authority for the Church is, what the role of tradition in the Church is, what the ability of man to merit salvation is, what is the Church, etc. a clear answer comes out: The ELCA is not Baptist, not Calvinist, not Eastern-Orthodox, not Roman-Catholic, not Methodist, not Unitarian but Lutheran. Are they properly remembering all of the teachings of our Evangelical Lutheran Faith? Probably not, but then again one could argue that the LCMS or WELS doesn't either. So while we may not like what the ELCA does, we should bear in mind that it would be much more accurate to describe it as Lutheran-lite than non-Lutheran.

 

[night2day]

I disagree. The ELCA is Lutheran because the fundamental doctrines which it upholds are Lutheran. The ELCA subscribes to the Augsburg confession...

Are you fully certain? When those who orginally presented the Augsburg Confession to Emporer Charles the V of Germany and his brother Ferdinand, King of Austria, they were ordered to join with the others in the full Catholic Mass the next day...or else. The German princes, however, stood up to them and refused. George, Margrave of Brandenburg spoke for the others by stating:

"Before I let anyone take from me the Word of God and ask me to deny my God, I will kneel and let them strike off the head."

And yet today, what does E?CA do with the fundamental doctrines you state it claimes it upholds from the Sciptures? It states at the offical website itself there are some things that may by read and applied within a culteral context only...as if what was written within the Scriptures couldn't have possibly have happened as it said. *(edited) Miracles must be able to be explained away. For others, there must be the freedom to believe otherwise regarding the Scriptures.
​

And lets not forget, E?CA is also in full fellowship with at least the Episcipalian and the United Church of Christ, if not more. Brushing aside some of the more morally issues regrading pastoral leadership, there's something much more basic the UCC voted on recently that was expected to lose at a recent convention:

Whether or not Jesus was God.

That's fairly basic Christian doctrine. And the the Augsburg Confessions underlie this. If you doubt...go recheck Article 3 regarding the Chief Articles of Faith.

If E?CA was Lutheran, then why is there denominational fellowship with two denominations that disregard some of the very basic teachings of Christianity such as the above? Why be within an fellowship which allows for an "open tent" of diverse and conconflicting teachings that only lead to confusion when the Scriptures warn us to stay away from false doctrine and remain with the true?
​

What Benke and his cohorts did in order to wordplay the BoC to their "Universalism" that regardless whether or not they have Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior by grace, through faith they will be saved was inexcusabled. If they want to practice false all-are-one from any religion practices and the like in which all religions and any gods or goddesses are welcome...at least they should be honest and not masqurade pastors of Jesus Christ who're called to administer the sacraments as Christ commanded and preach the pure and unadulterated Law and Gospel.

I'm not that far off from labeling my own Synod as the ?CMS either if they continue to keep going the way they are either come to the on it.

I'm very glad I kept my BoC from my ole college days when Ann Arbor was still a small collage.

 

[SPALATIN]

I disagree. The ELCA is Lutheran because the fundamental doctrines which it upholds are Lutheran. The ELCA subscribes to the Augsburg confession. As a convert to the LCMS, the instruction course was not greatly different from the teachings of the ELCA except on the issues of Historical Criticism, women in clergy, and a generally more strict approach to current affairs. On the matters of how salvation happens, what the sacrament of the altar is, what baptism is, and other things like single predestination the ELCA is in agreement with other branches of Lutheranism. In fact, when I borrow books from my pastor often they are written by theologians of the ELCA, similarly when my mother was serving as the head of Christian Education in an ELCA church she often ordered publications from Concordia because she felt that they better illustrated the teachings that her church but did not contradict the ELCA's teachings.

It may say it holds to the Augsburg confession, but does it really? How about the rest of the Book of Concord? These issues you speak of are intrinically important if you read scripture apart from the Historical-Critical interpretation. Their compromise to the Episcopalians in the CCM was a betrayal to the Augsburg Confession, the Apology, the Smalcald Articles, The Formula of Concord and the Epitome. The E?CA betrayed Lutheranism for unity and thereby gave up their right to be called Lutheran.

The Problem is that you have a rogue leadership in the ELCA that wants to do it's own will apart from the will of the congregations. They act only in their own self-interests. The people in Word Alone state this fact consistently.

 

[Melethiel]

The Problem is that you have a rogue leadership in the ELCA that wants to do it's own will apart from the will of the congregations. They act only in their own self-interests. The people in Word Alone state this fact consistently.

I agree completely. I have a question though, aren't Kieschnick (sp?) and DayStar doing a similar thing in the LCMS?

 

[SPALATIN]

I agree completely. I have a question though, aren't Kieschnick (sp?) and DayStar doing a similar thing in the LCMS?

I won't disagree that there are problems in the LCMS with the current Synod President. I certainly didn't like it that Daystar and JesusFirst were campaigning for him last year. And his desire to put the CCM(Committee on Constitutional Matters) as a higher authority than the Synod Board has caused much consternation among the clergy and "confessionals" there, but I think he has less authority than we often give him credit for.

If he goes overboard too much he runs the risk of being voted out after 3 years. Whereas the Bishop of the E?CA I believe has a reign for as long as he wants it. If someone from the E?CA wants to correct me on this I won't get in their way.

 

[Jim47]

I still think these are really more issues of discipline, practice and of synod history than they are issues of theology. If you want me to believe that the ELCA is not Lutheran, then I need to see fundamental differences of doctrine.

Please believe me, I am not looking to insult nor debate, but have you not heard that many ELCA churches deny the Bible as being God's Word, they deny the ten commandments and say homo-sexual practices are O/k and I won't even bother with the other issues.

How can you consider them Lutheran.

Music. I am very happy to hear that you adhere to the LCMS beliefs. I wished you could convince your betrothed to join LCMS. At any rate, I wish you all God's Blessings in your marriage.

 

[night2day]

---I have a question though, aren't Kieschnick (sp?) and DayStar doing a similar thing in the LCMS?

Yes and no. Yes, the Synod preesident as well as Jesus First, Daystar, and any anti-Biblical outifit are doing the same. Recall, however, LCMS has offically not changed it's core teachings. So, no, even though these groups are working hard for that to happen officially and foundationally, the LCMS doctrinally has not changed.

While there are also entire congergations which have drifted away from the teachings and practices of the LCMS while fully retaining the name on the...which to only to be more "loving" and "accepting"...or is it more "loved and "acccepted" by a society which changes on a whim?

Still, half of the congergations in the LCMS aren't even kept up to date of what's even going on within their own synod...by their Pastors. Certain districts within the LCMS tend to be much more liberal. While others...are much more Biblically-bound. The more Biblically-bound ones are usually also the ones that are more updated by their pastors what is transpiring in the Synod.

Is it any wonder then that there are a number of LCMS members confused as to what the church really does teach unless they are sat down and taught from the pure unadultered Scriptures? And the Holy Spirit draws them to realize what they need to listen to instead of them hearing to only what they want to hear?

 

[IowaLutheran]

If he goes overboard too much he runs the risk of being voted out after 3 years. Whereas the Bishop of the E?CA I believe has a reign for as long as he wants it. If someone from the E?CA wants to correct me on this I won't get in their way.

He has a six year term.

http://www.elca.org/bishop/office.html

 

[Zoomer]

ELCA will no longer be Lutheran in a few years. It's sad, that there are Lutherans who do not even know what that means.

 

[Tetzel]

Please believe me, I am not looking to insult nor debate, but have you not heard that many ELCA churches deny the Bible as being God's Word, they deny the ten commandments and say homo-sexual practices are O/k and I won't even bother with the other issues.

I don't make it a practice to believe rumors without evidence.

Extraordinary claims like yours require a lot of proof. Also, just because there might be a person here or there that says something does not make it official doctrine. A few weeks ago we had a guest-pastor at my LCMS church who said the earth is 6000 years old, but if one consults the LCMS webpage it says that there is no scripture that says the earth is not older. Does that mean that those who dislike the LCMS would be justified in claiming that the LCMS promotes fundamentalism because this one man said something that would be in agreement with many fundamentalists?

 

[SPALATIN]

I don't make it a practice to believe rumors without evidence.

Extraordinary claims like yours require a lot of proof. Also, just because there might be a person here or there that says something does not make it official doctrine. A few weeks ago we had a guest-pastor at my LCMS church who said the earth is 6000 years old, but if one consults the LCMS webpage it says that there is no scripture that says the earth is not older. Does that mean that those who dislike the LCMS would be justified in claiming that the LCMS promotes fundamentalism because this one man said something that would be in agreement with many fundamentalists?

The ELCA holds to the Historical Critical method of understanding scripture. Which means that the Bible in part was written only to that culture at that time and does not hold relevance to today. This is how they are justifiying women being Pastors and the upcoming vote on Sexuality. I don't know that it is at the congregational level completely, but I do know that the Synod will say as much on their web-page.