Good 'OL LCMS

[DaSeminarian]

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.

[Original post edited by DaSem]

 

[BakaFidelis]

I'm curious as to your source of this.

<i>My</i> source?

Umm.. ok... *shows you my saddened heart*

Otherwise, looking externally from outside the synod, I have only my contacts here. Specifically:

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.

DaRev, if you have contradictory information, I would be glad to hear it. Otherwise I am willing to take Rad at his word.

 

[DaRev]

<i>My</i> source?

Umm.. ok... *shows you my saddened heart*

Otherwise, looking externally from outside the synod, I have only my contacts here. Specifically:

DaRev, if you have contradictory information, I would be glad to hear it. Otherwise I am willing to take Rad at his word.

Rad does not rely on credible sources. It would be best for you to have something credible to back up your statements.

 

[BakaFidelis]

Edited out as DeSeminarian edited his post

Are you saying the essay was doctrinally false?

If you would be so kind, please tell me which points that were made were not valid?

Admittingly I do not know a whole lot of theological jargon, but I found it accurate to the best of my humble knowledge. If you would like to refute it, please tell me so that I might learn.

(Edited by BakaFidelis as it no longer pertains to this post)

 

[BakaFidelis]

Rad does not rely on credible sources. It would be best for you to have something credible to back up your statements.

Except I didn't make a statement, I made an OPINION based on what was presented to me. As I asked, if you have something else, please tell me.

However, I am going to ask you to qualify your statements.

1) What is the seminary doing about the supposed misinterpretation of doctrine as seen in recent student papers?

2) Do YOU think that there is a misinterpretation of doctrine in those papers?

3) Why do you think Radman does not rely on credible sources?

4) Why are you attacking me for having an opinion. If it IS true, then it IS a sad thing. I would certainly not rejoice in it.

 

[RadMan]

It makes you wonder why President Wenthe and the Board of Regents don't hold a special faculty meeting and refute criticism of the doctrine they are teaching their students to publish in the "Cornerstone?" Why not explain the seminarians opinion to the whole Synod why there is no congregation without a "Bishop". Why aren't the students being taught Walther's "Church and Ministry" the official position of the LCMS as voted on by more than a 2/3s majority at the 2001.

I'm sure there are some fine students that will come out of Ft.Wayne and that are also some fine teachers there to. The problem is that Ft.Wayne might be slipping back into some of their old habits.

 

[DaRev]

1) What is the seminary doing about the supposed misinterpretation of doctrine as seen in recent student papers?

That I don't know, but I would hope that an explanation is forthcoming.

2) Do YOU think that there is a misinterpretation of doctrine in those papers?

From what I've read, yes. But I do not know the context from which they are written, either. That I would also like to know.

3) Why do you think Radman does not rely on credible sources?

I know his sources.

4) Why are you attacking me for having an opinion. If it IS true, then it IS a sad thing. I would certainly not rejoice in it.

Was I attacking you? Or did I ask for the source of your opinion? I think they are 2 completely different things. I was not attacking and I apologize if it sounded as such.

 

[BakaFidelis]

That I don't know, but I would hope that an explanation is forthcoming.

Fair enough

From what I've read, yes. But I do not know the context from which they are written, either. That I would also like to know.

All right. Yes I wouldn't mind hearing the story behind the story.

I know his sources.

I don't, so without mistrusting him and unless someone clarifies or reputes what is said, I take it as I take anything. Probably true but always open for rebuttal.

Was I attacking you? Or did I ask for the source of your opinion? I think they are 2 completely different things. I was not attacking and I apologize if it sounded as such.

It did sound like it yes. I know sometimes text is difficult both in writing and interpretation.

I have readily admitted time and again that all I really know about LCMS is mostly from you guys. To ask me my source when it was the post directly above mine WAS the source and I figured you knew that... because it was right there. I felt as though you were unnecessarily singling out my post when you could have just given me information instead of asking for information that you already had.

But yes, I do forgive you.

 

[DaSeminarian]

Are you saying the essay was doctrinally false?

If you would be so kind, please tell me which points that were made were not valid?

Admittingly I do not know a whole lot of theological jargon, but I found it accurate to the best of <i>my</i> humble knowledge. If you would like to refute it, please tell me so that I might learn.

... And please do so without the remarks about you wanting a soul to be eternally damned.

The Cornerstone is a Student run newsletter which includes student papers. I am not sure who checks the validity of them. I need to look into this further.

I apologize and will be deleting my first post.

 

[filosofer]

It makes you wonder why President Wenthe and the Board of Regents don't hold a special faculty meeting and refute criticism of the doctrine they are teaching their students to publish in the "Cornerstone?" Why not explain the seminarians opinion to the whole Synod why there is no congregation without a "Bishop". Why aren't the students being taught Walther's "Church and Ministry" the official position of the LCMS as voted on by more than a 2/3s majority at the 2001.

[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]
Just to clarify: you are making an assumption here that is not accurate. What evidence do you have that the faculty are teaching this doctrine? Because two students write the paper does not mean that the faculty are teaching that doctrine. Also, how do you know that they are not teaching Walther's "Church and Ministry"?

[/font]

 

[RadMan]

[FONT=&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;]
Just to clarify: you are making an assumption here that is not accurate. What evidence do you have that the faculty are teaching this doctrine? Because two students write the paper does not mean that the faculty are teaching that doctrine. Also, how do you know that they are not teaching Walther's "Church and Ministry"?

[/FONT]

You have some valid points. I'll have to look into that although I just wonder where the students got the ideas and why they were allowed to publish their thoughts.

Since you are more familiar with the curriculum maybe you can tell me which of these courses teach Walther's "Church and Ministry". If they do then I will rescind my comment.


Sample Curriculum Fall Qtr. Winter Qtr. Spring Qtr.
Sem 1 Gospels I
Luth Confess I
Luth Worship I
Church History I
Bibliog & Tech
NT Grk Readings
Field Ed I Hebrew I
Dogmatics I
Church History II
Gospels II
NT Grk Readings
Field Ed I Hebrew II
Theologia I
Church History III
Intro to Miss/Evang
Homiletics I
NT Grk Readings
Field Ed I
Sem 2 Pentateuch I
Luth Confess II
Luth Ch in Amer
Luth Worship II
Past Counseling
NT Grk Readings
Field Ed II Pentateuch II
Dogmatics II
Catechetics
Homiletics II
NT Grk Readings
Field Ed II Pauline Epistles
History Area Elective
Theologia II
Pastoral Theol I
NT Grk Readings
Field Ed II
Isagogical Proficiency Exam* Vicar
Vicarage

Sem 4 Major Prophets
Luth Confess III
Sem: Hist Text
Pastoral Theol II
Dogmatics III Psalms
Seminar: Luther Txt
Theo Ethics
Homiletics III
Elective Gospels III
Theologia III
Pastor, Cong, Synod
Min in Plur Context
Elective

 

[RadMan]

The whole problem seems to be Ft.Wayne publications and what they allow. Obviously the statements made by the students comes from questionable education and even then they shouldn't have been published in a school publication. That in itself lends plausibility to what they write. How can CTS allow a statement of theology that is supposedly in direct contrast to what they teach?

Another publication put out by Ft.Wayne is the "Life of the World". In a particular article published in Oct. 1999 there was an article that was in opposition to Walther's Church and ministry. I'm not saying that they don't support it but I would think that if they did they wouldn't allow such articles to represent the magazine. You would think that they would monitor it better. If this article is saying that God speaks and acts through those called and ordained because they are called and ordained, then they have made the Office of the Keys the property of the clergy and excluded the Royal Priesthood of all believers. That's not Walther.

Here's is the article and maybe upon searching more I could find more articles that state opposition to Church and Ministry.
The Rev. Chad L. Bird is an Assistant Professor of Exegetical Theology at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana. Or he was at the time of this writing.

http://www.lifeoftheworld.com/lotw/article.php?m_vol=3&m_num=4&a_num=1

 

[DaSeminarian]

The whole problem seems to be Ft.Wayne publications and what they allow. Obviously the statements made by the students comes from questionable education and even then they shouldn't have been published in a school publication. That in itself lends plausibility to what they write. How can CTS allow a statement of theology that is supposedly in direct contrast to what they teach?

Quite frankly I don't see your argument holding water. "The COrnerstone is a publication of the Students Association. I suppose in some ways it does speak to the teaching, but I am more likely to believe that Rev. Cascione took them out of context to suit his own purposes of criticizing the school. There will be no rebuttal to what he is saying because there are more people defending us than him right now.

Another publication put out by Ft.Wayne is the "Life of the World". In a particular article published in Oct. 1999 there was an article that was in opposition to Walther's Church and ministry. I'm not saying that they don't support it but I would think that if they did they wouldn't allow such articles to represent the magazine. You would think that they would monitor it better. If this article is saying that God speaks and acts through those called and ordained because they are called and ordained, then they have made the Office of the Keys the property of the clergy and excluded the Royal Priesthood of all believers. That's not Walther.

Wow, you have to go back 8 years to find a questionable article in a magazine with which you disagree? Nothing recent? grabbing at straws aren't you?

Here's is the article and maybe upon searching more I could find more articles that state opposition to Church and Ministry.
The Rev. Chad L. Bird is an Assistant Professor of Exegetical Theology at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana. Or he was at the time of this writing.

http://www.lifeoftheworld.com/lotw/article.php?m_vol=3&m_num=4&a_num=1

Considering the source of the article by a prof who left under questionable circumstances. Good one. Mr. Bird is no longer in the LCMS let alone the ministry.

You are doing some judging based on hearsay and an article of which I question the motive behind writing it.

Rev. Cascione can not seem to find fault with the teachers so he goes after the students. That is real professional. NOT! Please stop now on your judgment of anything to do with the LCMS and more specifically Concordia Theological Seminary until you know all the facts behind the story. Otherwise you appear to be throwing stones at the woman without considering your own sins first.

I find your posts here on this subject to be quite distasteful and insulting. You don't know the students who wrote these articles and apparently haven't read the full content of their article to know whether or not Rev. Cascione is blowing smoke or is truly adequate. He published them by the way without permission on his website. He has already broken Copyright laws, but we will forgive him.

This is my final word to you on this subject. I have kept it civil. I urge you to just let it go and find someone else to bother that isn't on this forum.

 

[RadMan]

Well DaSem if you want something a little more current here's an excerpt of an article written for LCMS and posted on their site. David Strand reports on the Synod's second Model Theological Conference Aug. 23-25 2005.

.............. Rev. Kurt Marquart, a professor at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, said, "We need to name the actual problems that bedevil us." One such problem, he said, is that some pastors, those in the "pseudo-confessional movement, drooling after Rome," have adopted "an elitist view of clergy."
http://www.lcms.org/pages/rpage.asp?NavID=8688

So there are other people in the synod and even professors of CTS that are concerned on where some of our pastors are heading........and where they have headed. There has been an out flux of pastors that have gone EO and RCC and we all know that has happened. Look at John Fenton and many other pastors that have gone over to EO. Even people from the EO forum have come in here over the last year and remarked on how many pastors have gone over the Bosporus. The two CTS sem students and the article by Rev Bird should be a warning sign that something of importance should be addressed. If the problem is ignored it will not go away.

If the EO theology is prevalent in some of our seminaries then maybe people shouldn't be affronted by someone who brings up the obvious but be more concerned that EO theology is present and influencing the students..........and possibly the staff.

Excerpts form Rev Paul T McCain's blog page:

"The sad thing is that recent converts to Orthodox are actively seeking others to convert to their point of view. They especially seem to target younger pastors, some of them converts themselves to Lutheranism. They play off their frustrations with realities of the Lutheran church today. They move in and work to influence and turn a person's mind toward Orthodoxy. They work to shake confidence in the ground of faith: Christ and His Gospel and Gospel Sacraments. They try to impress the impressionable by a show of beautiful liturgy, a supposed "Great Tradition," and by claims to be "really the church." And by convincing some that the problems in Lutheranism are so vast, and so great, they lead some to believe that the only possible response is to leave. But to accomplish this they must embrace a see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil mindset toward Orthodoxy. They do not really seem able to internalize the contradiction of leaving one communion because of real, or perceived ills, only to join another with more than its share of the same! "

http://cyberbrethren.typepad.com/cyberbrethren/2006/10/thoughts_on_ort.html#more

 

[Tofferer]

Here's is the article and maybe upon searching more I could find more articles that state opposition to Church and Ministry.
The Rev. Chad L. Bird is an Assistant Professor of Exegetical Theology at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana. Or he was at the time of this writing.

http://www.lifeoftheworld.com/lotw/article.php?m_vol=3&m_num=4&a_num=1

Reading through this, I could only think of one term to describe what the author of this article was discussing. That term is "ontological change". I will now shut my mouth.

 

[DaSeminarian]

Well DaSem if you want something a little more current here's an excerpt of an article written for LCMS and posted on their site. David Strand reports on the Synod's second Model Theological Conference Aug. 23-25 2005.

.............. Rev. Kurt Marquart, a professor at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, said, "We need to name the actual problems that bedevil us." One such problem, he said, is that some pastors, those in the "pseudo-confessional movement, drooling after Rome," have adopted "an elitist view of clergy."
http://www.lcms.org/pages/rpage.asp?NavID=8688

So there are other people in the synod and even professors of CTS that are concerned on where some of our pastors are heading........and where they have headed. There has been an out flux of pastors that have gone EO and RCC and we all know that has happened. Look at John Fenton and many other pastors that have gone over to EO. Even people from the EO forum have come in here over the last year and remarked on how many pastors have gone over the Bosporus. The two CTS sem students and the article by Rev Bird should be a warning sign that something of importance should be addressed. If the problem is ignored it will not go away.

If the EO theology is prevalent in some of our seminaries then maybe people shouldn't be affronted by someone who brings up the obvious but be more concerned that EO theology is present and influencing the students..........and possibly the staff.

Excerpts form Rev Paul T McCain's blog page:

"The sad thing is that recent converts to Orthodox are actively seeking others to convert to their point of view. They especially seem to target younger pastors, some of them converts themselves to Lutheranism. They play off their frustrations with realities of the Lutheran church today. They move in and work to influence and turn a person's mind toward Orthodoxy. They work to shake confidence in the ground of faith: Christ and His Gospel and Gospel Sacraments. They try to impress the impressionable by a show of beautiful liturgy, a supposed "Great Tradition," and by claims to be "really the church." And by convincing some that the problems in Lutheranism are so vast, and so great, they lead some to believe that the only possible response is to leave. But to accomplish this they must embrace a see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil mindset toward Orthodoxy. They do not really seem able to internalize the contradiction of leaving one communion because of real, or perceived ills, only to join another with more than its share of the same! "

http://cyberbrethren.typepad.com/cyberbrethren/2006/10/thoughts_on_ort.html#more

Thats over 2 years ago that that conference took place.

I'm telling you Rad, There is no teaching of Eastern Orthodox theology other than to tell us why it is wrong.

I go here and it is complete the opposite of what Cascione and company are saying. I read both articles from The Cornerstone and then read Cascione's review. He took some things out of context and completely turned it all around to support his argument which was really a strawman from the beginning.

I have Dr. David Scaer for Dogmatics II which covers Christology. We have been given many points of view including EO and Scaer rejects it completely.

It's really not for anyone to judge what is happening here unless you visit the campus and attend a few of the classes.

Scott

 

[BakaFidelis]

The Cornerstone is a Student run newsletter which includes student papers. I am not sure who checks the validity of them. I need to look into this further.

I apologize and will be deleting my first post.

Yes, I would think that a student run zine would have to answer to someone. If you find out why it wasn't refused printing, I would be curious to know.

I have a question tho on the magazine. Were those papers written FOR the magazine, or were they class assignments that were printed by the magazine as exemplary work?

I saw the apology in the other forum, and for the record, no, it was not me. I won't say that it didn't shock me, but I prefer working it out instead of reporting.

I know anger and frustration can get the better of people sometimes. We are after all, only human. Be careful though with how you express it. This is not a criticism, but just showing concern for you.

Rad is right... You guys ARE both on the same team. if albeit on opposite ends of the spectrum. I wish that you both could learn to work with each other instead of butting heads as that gets no one anywhere very fast.

The visible church NEEDS watchdogs like Rad. Some views may be extreme, but it helps keep things in check. Just as the church needs those who would defend her, and those who would correct any that go astray. I don't feel it is slander to talk about problems that may or may not be present. It is through communication that we are able to learn and to defend our faith.

Martin Luther thought this, otherwise we would never have Reformation day nor would he had so diligently argued his apologetics.

Please note: I am not claiming Rad to be ML incarnate, LOL.

But if you believe he is undermining the LCMS as he attempts to help the synod, why don't you sit down and discuss it privately to see if there is anything you can both do to help each other and keep each other from becoming too blinded by your respective causes.

 

[DaSeminarian]

Yes, I would think that a student run zine would have to answer to someone. If you find out why it wasn't refused printing, I would be curious to know.

I have a question tho on the magazine. Were those papers written FOR the magazine, or were they class assignments that were printed by the magazine as exemplary work?

Usually the only circulation this particular magazine has is the students and faculty. I don't know maybe someone sent some out or they have other interested parties they send it to.

I saw the apology in the other forum, and for the record, no, it was not me. I won't say that it didn't shock me, but I prefer working it out instead of reporting.

I know anger and frustration can get the better of people sometimes. We are after all, only human. Be careful though with how you express it. This is not a criticism, but just showing concern for you.

I appreciate your concern

Rad is right... You guys ARE both on the same team. if albeit on opposite ends of the spectrum. I wish that you both could learn to work with each other instead of butting heads as that gets no one anywhere very fast.

The visible church NEEDS watchdogs like Rad. Some views may be extreme, but it helps keep things in check. Just as the church needs those who would defend her, and those who would correct any that go astray. I don't feel it is slander to talk about problems that may or may not be present. It is through communication that we are able to learn and to defend our faith.

To some degree I agree with that. But he often speaks without knowing all the evidence and that is where I draw the line. It isn't that he speaks but how he speaks that causes the problem. He often uses the only piece of information he has at the time and then thinks he knows the whole story and automatically sides with those to whom he agrees anyway.

Martin Luther thought this, otherwise we would never have Reformation day nor would he had so diligently argued his apologetics.

Please note: I am not claiming Rad to be ML incarnate, LOL.

Luther had all the facts which is why he was able to fight against the powers that be. God gifted him with a quick wit and sometimes harsh tongue to take on his detractors.

I would never dare to think you would claim that about Rad.

But if you believe he is undermining the LCMS as he attempts to help the synod, why don't you sit down and discuss it privately to see if there is anything you can both do to help each other and keep each other from becoming too blinded by your respective causes.

I never said Rad was undermining it. I believe though that he could hold his tongue until he knows both sides well enough to make well formed opinion about what is right and what is not. Here he is trying to understand a debate on dogmatics in which one clergy is criticizing some student articles. He automatically assumes that Rev. Cascione is right because he is after all an ordained minister. It is also someone he respects and likes.

While I will show respect for Cascione I don't like him and believe that he does seek to undermine things in the LCMS to which he left two years ago in a rather showy way to display his disagreement with the synod. Now he wants the rights and privileges of criticizing it. He should not be able to have it both ways.

There is a way that Rad can show his concern for the synod. He can learn all the information he can about something he doesn't understand and then even then ask questions as to whether his understanding is correct so that he can be corrected on an issue. Come to the subject with humility rather than hubris and seek to learn. Then after all the possible information has been attained offer an opinion.

This all looks like a witch hunt over on LQ. I went there to read the posts and found everyone in an uproar and not one of them had the real scoop. They just all wanted to rave about something. They break the 8th commandment over there constantly and it is one reason I have not gone back there to post in over 7 months.

I like Rad. He has posted some really great things here, but when he gets this way it is difficult to be here. He has done this with others as well here so I am not the first one.

 

[DaSeminarian]

You have some valid points. I'll have to look into that although I just wonder where the students got the ideas and why they were allowed to publish their thoughts.

Since you are more familiar with the curriculum maybe you can tell me which of these courses teach Walther's "Church and Ministry". If they do then I will rescind my comment.


Sample Curriculum Fall Qtr. Winter Qtr. Spring Qtr.
Sem 1 Gospels I
Luth Confess I
Luth Worship I
Church History I
Bibliog & Tech
NT Grk Readings
Field Ed I Hebrew I
Dogmatics I
Church History II
Gospels II
NT Grk Readings
Field Ed I Hebrew II
Theologia I
Church History III
Intro to Miss/Evang
Homiletics I
NT Grk Readings
Field Ed I
Sem 2 Pentateuch I
Luth Confess II
Luth Ch in Amer
Luth Worship II
Past Counseling
NT Grk Readings
Field Ed II Pentateuch II
Dogmatics II
Catechetics
Homiletics II
NT Grk Readings
Field Ed II Pauline Epistles
History Area Elective
Theologia II
Pastoral Theol I
NT Grk Readings
Field Ed II
Isagogical Proficiency Exam* Vicar
Vicarage

Sem 4 Major Prophets
Luth Confess III
Sem: Hist Text
Pastoral Theol II
Dogmatics III Psalms
Seminar: Luther Txt
Theo Ethics
Homiletics III
Elective Gospels III
Theologia III
Pastor, Cong, Synod
Min in Plur Context
Elective

My sources who have had the class say that Dogmatics 3 which is a fourth year class.

 

[BakaFidelis]

Historically speaking, student magazines typically are the the forerunner of fresh 'new' and sometimes radical ideas. Read through the archives of any college publication and you will see that they often discuss topics that won't hit the general public for another 2-3 decades.

I am sorry, but I do not have any documentation to support this claim except to ask you to actually do it. It is knowledge gleamed from one of my university sociology classes from years ago. However, that letter Braaten wrote (copy is in the ELCA sub thread), also indicated his own years as a student paper editor.

It may not be a problem yet, but if a student zine is printing about it, it is better to keep a watchful eye than to be caught off guard.