Good 'OL LCMS

[LutheranHawkeye]

October 3, 2007

"Congregation Builds New Preschool for Outreach"

Redeemer Lutheran Church of Saint Clair Shores MI dedicated a new
half-million dollar expansion to its preschool and kindergarten on Sunday,
September 23, 2007.

Photographs of the congregation were taken after the early and the late
services can be viewed at http://www.concordtx.org/msnews/Red_SCS.htm

Enrollment rose from 95 to 120 after the project, which began in April, and
was completed on September 10, 2007.

Redeemer withdrew from the LCMS in 2004 after the Council of District
Presidents wrote to the congregation that District Presidents do not have to
follow proper channels in congregational constitutions which have already
been approved by the District.

After the congregation withdrew, District President Hoesman immediately
removed Pastor Cascione from the Synodical roster. Fellowship in the LCMS
is based CCM rulings.

A number of LCMS congregations have refused to serve Communion to members of
Redeemer who visit their congregations.

RadMan I respect your decision for wanting to leave the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, but why continue to slander her? Even the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church, nor radical ideology.

 

[RadMan]

RadMan I respect your decision for wanting to leave the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, but why continue to slander her? Even the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church, nor radical ideology.

What are you doing? Picking up the ball after everyones else dropped it? Get past it. I'm not raggin' on anyone. Or are you just joining in on the fun and stirring things up again? Those are old posts.

Besides that I'm not rallying against the "church". I'm pointing out inequities with the LCMS synod. They are not the church, per se. Just an administrative process.

I'm still in the LCMS and will probably stay here. Capiesh? I can still critique any subject I care to.

 

[DaSeminarian]

What are you doing? Picking up the ball after everyones else dropped it? Get past it. I'm not raggin' on anyone. Or are you just joining in on the fun and stirring things up again? Those are old posts.

I'm still in the LCMS and will probably stay here. Capiesh? I can still critique any subject I care to.

He's probably referring to when you recently said you were leaving the LCMS for Herman Otten's church.

 

[RadMan]

He's probably referring to when you recently said you were leaving the LCMS for Herman Otten's church.

Even though Otten isn't in the LCMS his church (Trinity Lutheran) still is. And though LCMS has tried to censor Trinity the faithful still come. LCMS still hasn't been able to take them off their roster yet. And why should they? It is a conservative, confessional congregation with a divine service and they adhere to their constitution that is not in opposition to any LCMS rules for a member church.

 

[Studeclunker]

Go get 'em Rad!

 

[DaRev]

Even though Otten isn't in the LCMS his church (Trinity Lutheran) still is. And though LCMS has tried to censor Trinity the faithful still come. LCMS still hasn't been able to take them off their roster yet. And why should they? It is a conservative, confessional congregation with a divine service and they adhere to their constitution that is not in opposition to any LCMS rules for a member church.

Except they have called a non-rostered pastor, which is in opposition to LCMS rules. Why they haven't been removed from the Synod roster is beyond me.

 

[RadMan]

Except they have called a non-rostered pastor, which is in opposition to LCMS rules. Why they haven't been removed from the Synod roster is beyond me.

You know we are both defenders of the faith and we don't always see eye to eye. We just have different ways of looking at things. We are both neither right or wrong. We just do it. My Ying, you're Yang. Both opposing forces but part of the whole. Christian, confessional Lutherans.





.

 

[Studeclunker]

Ok fellas, now I'm confused. I know that Otten is not a rostered pastor with the LCMS any more. Didn't he start out as one? If so, where is there reason for the LCMS to remove a congregation that refuses to sack a pastor the synod sent them? Could it be that Kiesneck (sic) and his cronies are afraid of what might be dredged up during the proceedings?

 

[DaRev]

Ok fellas, now I'm confused. I know that Otten is not a rostered pastor with the LCMS any more. Didn't he start out as one? If so, where is there reason for the LCMS to remove a congregation that refuses to sack a pastor the synod sent them? Could it be that Kiesneck (sic) and his cronies are afraid of what might be dredged up during the proceedings?

Otten graduated from Concordia St. Louis, but was never certified to serve in the synod. The congregation he is at called him against the policy of the LCMS. That congregation was removed from the roster at one time but was reinstated for some reason. Otten has never been on the LCMS clergy roster.

 

[RadMan]

Ok fellas, now I'm confused. I know that Otten is not a rostered pastor with the LCMS any more. Didn't he start out as one? If so, where is there reason for the LCMS to remove a congregation that refuses to sack a pastor the synod sent them? Could it be that Kiesneck (sic) and his cronies are afraid of what might be dredged up during the proceedings?

They are just trying to get to him through his church since he can't be touched any other way. Legal action against him has failed numerous times becasue there was no basis for it. Their attempts failed but they will keep trying. Otten was one of many that has kept the LCMS hierarchy and liberals from achieving their goals.

 

[RadMan]

http://www.lcms.org/pages/rpage.asp?NavID=12750

What happened to the Ablaze movement?

 

[Breetai]

http://www.lcms.org/pages/rpage.asp?NavID=12750

What happened to the Ablaze movement?

Too many slogans, not enough... reality?

 

[DaRev]

What happened to the Ablaze movement?

Exactly!!

 

[RadMan]

In the release were two articles written by students at Concordia
Theological Seminary in the Fort Wayne.

The following is a commentary on the two student articles published in the
CTS Student Association Paper, "The Cornerstone" on Sept/Oct 2007 titled "An
Incarnational Ecclesiology: Charitological and Liturgical" and "The
Education of a Pastor."

The opening sentence in the first article is in error. It reads:

"If all theology is indeed Christology, then it must follow that the same is
true for ecclesiology. How can this not be if the Church is the body of
Jesus Christ, who is Her head (Ephesians 5:23)? Thus, it is confessed that
the Church is incarnational."

Yes, all theology is about Christ or it is not Christian theology. However,
all theology is not ecclesiology. Any modifier in front of theology, such
as "church" or "pastoral" includes more than Christology, including
adiaphora, or things indifferent.

In true Greek Orthodox fashion, the Fort Wayne faculty members have
permitted the students to blur the distinction between Christ and His Church
and the pastoral office. Ecclesiology is not equal to Christology. The
Church is not the reincarnation of Jesus Christ. The creature is not equal
to its Creator. The church is Christ's creation.

The Church is the Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ but it is not
Christ. There is nothing incarnational about the pastoral office. Of
course, many LCMS Sacerdotalists worship themselves as the embodiment of
Christ. They forget that not even Christ's human nature is equal to His
divine nature or else He would only have one nature. "Equal to the Father
as touching His Godhead and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood."
The Church is the Body of Christ, not Christ; so also, the heavenly elements
in the Lord's Supper are the Body and Blood of Christ, not the whole Christ.

Ecclesiology is about Christ and it is also about Christians. The "Church"
is not mentioned until the third articles of the Apostles' and Nicene
Creeds, after the Holy Spirit.

The first false premise above led to a number of false conclusions that blur
the distinction between Christ and His Church:

1. "The means by which the grace of God comes to man is through the advent
of the Logos in the flesh. He is life."

Christ is the grace of God in the flesh, not the Means of Grace. The Means
of Grace are the Word and Sacraments. Christ is not the "means," He is the
"source." Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author [source]
of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;"

2. "The incarnation is not an abstraction; it is the enfleshment of the
Logos. Here is the FORM by which the Triune God comes to His people; here is
the FORM in which God gives grace to men. And our Lord continues to give
Himself to men through FORM and structure: 'That we may obtain this faith,
the ministry of teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was
instituted. For through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments, the
Holy Ghost is given (CA V).' Abstraction is still not given room. Grace
continues to be administered through a FORM."

The office of administrating Word and Sacrament doesn't make the pastor a
form of anything. The pastoral ministry is not instituted as "a form," of
Christ, of the Church, or anything else; it is an office. The office
doesn't become the form. Grace comes through the Means of Grace. The
pastor is not the means of the Means of Grace. Also, Augsburg V identifies
the Means of Grace as 'instruments' not 'forms.'"

3. "The Church is the location where grace, that is Christ, comes to men
through the form of the liturgy, that is, the preached Word and the
Sacraments."

The liturgy, (which I follow every Sunday) is not the fourth Means of Grace,
even if it quotes the Means of Grace.

4. "The Church is where abstraction ceases. 'Wherever the bishop appears,
there let the congregation be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is
the catholic church.'"

If the students are led to believe that Ecclesiology and Pastoral Theology
are Christology; that they are a form of God's grace to his Church instead
of office holders; and that the church is equal to Christ; they must come to
the sacerdotal conclusion that the church is where the "Bishop" is. Thus
they come to the following false conclusion:

5. "For where there is not a bishop preaching and comforting souls, there is
no Church."

Both students skip over Article IV on Justification and go on to the Article
V about the Ministry.

A congregation without a pastor is still a true church so long as they
confess the Word and Sacraments. The lay people, who are the church
(Article VIII of the Augsburg Confession), have the authority to call a man
to be a "Bishop," and bestow the office on a layman and make him a "Bishop."

The real presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Lord's Supper is only
present on the altar by virtue of the Congregation's correct teaching and
confession of the Words of Institution. A hundred Lutheran Bishops couldn't
consecrate and serve the Lord's Supper in a Methodist Church because the
congregation rejects the clear words and nullifies every word in the
Lutheran Bishop's mouth who attempts to consecrate the elements in a
Methodist Church.

Also a hundred Lutheran Bishops in a Mormon Church could not effect a true
baptism because the Mormon congregation rejects the Trinity. This is
because the church is where the true believers are.

Fort Wayne continues to delude the LCMS. No "Bishop" is a church. The
laymen in the congregations call men to be "Bishops" so that the
congregation is not without the office of the ministry.

The misguided Fort Wayne students are deluded to believe that there is no
church where there is no "Bishop." How wrong they are. There is no
"Bishop" where there is no church, because the Bishop has no call to be a
Bishop without a church. He also has no pay check.

Lay people can make Bishops but Bishops can't make lay people. Only God
makes Christians. Lay people are indispensable if there is going to be a
church according to Augsburg VIII.

Wherever the Word of God and the Sacraments are confessed this is where the
church is. These are the Means Grace.

 

[BakaFidelis]

Interesting. I wonder if that will cause a buzz and flurry of hush-hush activity, or if it will cause real actions to be taken.

I pray for the latter.

Thanks for the update!

 

[RadMan]

Interesting. I wonder if that will cause a buzz and flurry of hush-hush activity, or if it will cause real actions to be taken.

I pray for the latter.

Thanks for the update!

Incarnation is big in RCC and EO theology. I think it explains their take on communion and the idea of transubstantiation.

 

[BakaFidelis]

Incarnation is big in RCC and EO theology. I think it explains their take on communion and the idea of transubstantiation.

Yeah I got that part. I meant in regard to the seminary. Whether or not the matter would just be swept under the table or that if someone actually cares enough to have the papers retracted and *big leap here I know* take administrational steps to get teaching back on solid ground.

 

[RadMan]

Yeah I got that part. I meant in regard to the seminary. Whether or not the matter would just be swept under the table or that if someone actually cares enough to have the papers retracted and *big leap here I know* take administrational steps to get teaching back on solid ground.

They are trying to sweep it under the rug. Their PR people are trying to reverse the subject by making ovations about legal issues like asking permission and such.

They don't have a leg to stand on. Public papers are subject to public comment.

 

[BakaFidelis]

They are trying to sweep it under the rug. Their PR people are trying to reverse the subject by making ovations about legal issues like asking permission and such.

They don't have a leg to stand on. Public papers are subject to public comment.

Yep, I would tend to agree. If I wrote something that I knew would be open to the public, I should then not be surprised if it is commented upon, also publicly.

It is sad that a seminary, instead of recognizing a problem and dealing with it, is willing to go so far as to hide it and pretend that it does not exist.

 

[DaRev]

It is sad that a seminary, instead of recognizing a problem and dealing with it, is willing to go so far as to hide it and pretend that it does not exist.

I'm curious as to your source of this.