lcms and wels diffs?

[twin.spin]

deleted .... after reading it over, just can't make the point clearly enough.

 

[Zecryphon]

Keeping in mind that Jesus was fully human ... Jesus may not have been the best at money management. Judas could have been appointed by Jesus or Judas volunteered due to prior experience.

Don't you mean fully human and fully divine? What prior experience did Judas have? I mean to me it would make the most sense to make Matthew the treasurer as he had prior experience with money as a tax collector.

IMO there wasn't any women as part of the traveling party group of "disciples" that we would consider the 12 (or the 72 that was sent out) that was with Jesus in his three year ministry. Human nature hasn't changed in the past 2000 yrs nor do we read of some miracle being preformed on the disciples that removed the the inevitable difference in viewpoint \ argument that derive from the fact that at times the male simply isn't on the same page as the female.

Acts 1:13-14 seems to disagree with your assertion.

13 And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. 14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers Acts 1:13-14 (ESV)

I point this out because of several situations in scripture where a woman disciple could have "shown sympathy, caring nature" to a particular situation that only a woman by nature can do. The fact that its just not mentioned.... I find that rather odd if a woman was part of the traveling group in the three years of Jesus ministry. I read of such expressions from women coming from the outside of the disciples.

I'm not surprised that we don't read about this in the gospels, considering the attitude of men towards women in Biblical times.

 

[DaRev]

This is exactly why the WELS will never again joing in fellowship with the LCMS, unless you should change and follow what is truely written.

The LCMS does indeed follow what is truly written, taken in the context in which it is written. The WELS pulls things out of context and broadly applies it to things that Scripture may never have intended it to be applied.

The LCMS rejects also the belief that prayer is not a form of worship and therefore they pray even with people outside of their own fellowship. How do you justify that?

The LCMS does not reject that prayer is a form of worship. But there is a distinction made between corporate worship (Divine Service) and other acts outside of corporate worship. There are many things that are Biblically considered worship. Giving money or volunteering time, for example. Do WELS members donate to charities outside of their fellowship? Do they volunteer for certain causes outside their felloswhip?

 

[DaRev]

That passage does NOT say women can't be teachers or nurses, it says that some are called to do this, some are called to do that. And it says right in the passage that GOD has appointed. GOD has appointed teachers. GOD has appointed administrators. THIS is why we believe that our teachers (both male and female) have received a divine call. THIS is why we install our Sunday School teachers, our council members, our elders, our administrators. The bible CLEARLY states that they are appointed by GOD, not man.

The context of 1 Corinthians 12 has to do with spiritual gifts, not with the establishment of offices. It's referring to members of the body of Christ who are given the ability by the Spirit to serve in those capacities. It is not about establishing offices in the congregation by divine decree.
Context is king.

Exactly what do you guys vote on at your meetings? Who serves next month's potluck?

Business and organizational matters. The Voter's do not determine doctrine or practice. That is determined by God in His word.

 

[DaRev]

I can't find any scripture that says Jesus specifically appointed him to that office, but Jesus did call him as an apostle and Judas was the money keeper as pointed out in John 12:6. So if Jesus did not give him that job, how did he come to have it?

Calling Judas to be a disciple does not equate with divinely establishing the office of treasurer. The Scripture says nothing of how Judas came to be the money handler. (It does say he was dishonest about it.)

 

[DaRev]

As for women disciples, don't forget Luke 8:1-3. These women not only travelled with Jesus among the disciples, but also provided for them out of their means.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

The context of 1 Corinthians 12 has to do with spiritual gifts, not with the establishment of offices. It's referring to members of the body of Christ who are given the ability by the Spirit to serve in those capacities. It is not about establishing offices in the congregation by divine decree.
Context is king.

I think you just contradicted yourself. The passage shows how people are called to be things within the church and that those offices are appointed by God. It talks about teachers and administrators. Surely you're not saying the pastor serves in all of those capacities by himself...since you are claiming that the only God-appointed office is that of the pastor.

If it says that God appoints teachers, and I'm made a teacher in the WELS, who are you to say that it's not a divince call? Who are you to go against that passage that says that God appoints those offices?

Business and organizational matters. The Voter's do not determine doctrine or practice. That is determined by God in His word.

So that's a yes on the vote for next month's potluck then. Gotcha. And again, if the women vote for hot dish and the guys vote for pizza and there's more women than men...well...at least we see the conundrum.

See, at our church, while voters don't determine doctrine (that's for the larger assembly) we do vote on real stuff, like funding for the school and calling our teachers and our principals, amongst other things. The women do have a voice...they can go through their husbands or the elders. I know this because even as a divorced single mom I had just as much voice in the voters meetings, if not more since I had a dad, a grandpa and two male teachers in my corner.

I predict that because of the LCMS' loosey goosey stance with the role of women it won't be long before more and more LCMS churches are ordaining women.

But this is all why WELS won't entertain fellowship with LCMS until they have changed their views on the role of women and their fellowship practices with other churches.

As for charities and community outreach, we do quite well on our own without having to compromise what we believe and pretend it's not a big elephant in the room.

 

[Zecryphon]

Calling Judas to be a disciple does not equate with divinely establishing the office of treasurer. The Scripture says nothing of how Judas came to be the money handler. (It does say he was dishonest about it.)

I didn't say it did equate. I said Judas was called by Jesus to be a disciple and was also the money keeper and asked you how Judas got that job, if Jesus didn't give it to him. I know the Scriptures do not say specifically how Judas got that job, but a logical conclusion from reading the Scriptures is that Jesus gave it to him.

 

[QuiltAngel]

\
I predict that because of the LCMS' loosey goosey stance with the role of women it won't be long before more and more LCMS churches are ordaining women.

We do? When did that happen? Source please.

 

[Zecryphon]

We do? When did that happen? Source please.

It's just a prediction, Jane. That statement didn't strike me as being a declaration of any official direction the LCMS would take in the future. But if the LCMS did go that way, my impression is that Beckie wouldn't be surprised.

 

[QuiltAngel]

And it can be taken to mean that some are now. More and more indicates that they are already doing it.

Well, we in the LCMS would be surprised if we allowed it.

 

[Zecryphon]

Some LCMS churches may be doing that, I don't know for certain if they are or aren't. But hasn't it been admitted that one of the big problems facing the LCMS right now is enforcement of the rules across the board. I'm in no position to tell you guys how to run your synod as I'm not LCMS anymore, but if it were up to me, I'd work on the enforcement of the rules thing across the board first and leave the fellowship issue with the WELS alone for the time being. You guys have bigger problems to deal with.

 

[twin.spin]

Don't you mean fully human and fully divine?

Isn't that a given? Yet some forget that Jesus had to do the learning curve like any human.

What prior experience did Judas have? I mean to me it would make the most sense to make Matthew the treasurer as he had prior experience with money as a tax collector.

We don't know. But like you refered to below, the attitude of Jews about tax collectors could be enough of a reason for why Matthew wasn't. We do know that Judas wasn't a fisherman or a doctor .... so who's to say he didn't have experience?

Acts 1:13-14 seems to disagree with your assertion.

13 And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. 14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers Acts 1:13-14 (ESV)

I would say not if you would go to the begining of Acts 1 and understand that the "these men" of verse 3, is the point of focus of the writer. Who the writer refered to as "them" and "they" later in following verses and who would would eventually enter into the upper room.

"They" of verse 13 (when traced back) are the "these men" of verse 3 was identified as Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. ... IMO

Why I feel confident that "they" of verse 13 are "these men" of verse 3 and not to include the women is two fold:

1. In verse 4 the writer refers to "these men" as "them" when Jesus tells "them" to stay put till comming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. And we know that after Pentecost the skeptics refered to the disciples as "men"
   • "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? "
2. After the ascension of Jesus the angles said in Acts 1:11
   • "Men of Galilee,"

I'm not surprised that we don't read about this in the gospels, considering the attitude of men towards women in Biblical times.

In the OT, I do not recall women particapating in the "drawing of lots" .. can you refer to an instance of where that happened in the OT? My memory can only think of men "casting \ drawing lots"

 

[PreachersWife2004]

We do? When did that happen? Source please.

At very first glance, I remember reading back in 2008 that a pentecostal woman pastor was the "song leader" at a youth rally in Texas. She apparently gave spiritual commentary after her each of her songs. There was confusion amongst the teens who were at the rally as to who was actually giving the sermon.

That whole Oakland 4 mess was in part because of the hired services of an episcopalian woman pastor, was it not?

LCMS churches may not "officially" be ordaining women, but more and more LCMS churches are leaning that way. There's a LCMS church by me that is SO liberal, I spent my first year here thinking they were ELCA.

Point is, I certainly won't be surprised if the LCMS actually adopts a resolution that ordaining women is perfectly okay...especially if they start talking about the scriptures in context of today's world, like many churches are doing. Women already have leadership positions in LCMS churches. The line between those positions and that of pastor is a very thin line.

 

[Zecryphon]

Isn't that a given? Yet some forget that Jesus had to do the learning curve like any human.

On the internet and in any Christian forum, don't just assume someone believes something, find out for certain. That's why I asked the question I did. When someone says "Jesus is fully human," but does not also include that He is fully divine at the same time, it sends up warning signs to me that the person I'm talking to may not believe Jesus is both 100% God and 100% man. Do you have scriptural references for Jesus "doing the learning curve like any human?"

We don't know. But like you refered to below, the attitude of Jews about tax collectors could be enough of a reason for why Matthew wasn't. We do know that Judas wasn't a fisherman or a doctor .... so who's to say he didn't have experience?

Which statement of mine are you referring to with your opening sentence here? I said nothing about the attitude of Jews regarding tax collectors. I also said nothing about such an attitude keeping Matthew from holding the position. I don't think we have enough information on Judas' education to say he was or was not qualified to hold the position he did. Making an argument for either case is an argument from silence. A bad argument to make.

I would say not if you would go to the begining of Acts 1 and understand that the "these men" of verse 3, is the point of focus of the writer. Who the writer refered to as "them" and "they" later in following verses and who would would eventually enter into the upper room.

I see no evidence from verse 3 of Acts 1, that "these men" is the focus of the writer of Acts. There are many events covered in the book of Acts. To limit it to "these men" is to completely miss the point of the book. The words "them" and "they" can refer to more than just men as we see in verse 14 when the men and women were in the upper room praying together, united in thought and deed. You could refer to that gathering of people as "they" or "them" too.

"They" of verse 13 (when traced back) are the "these men" of verse 3 was identified as Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. ... IMO

Why I feel confident that "they" of verse 13 are "these men" of verse 3 and not to include the women is two fold:

1. In verse 4 the writer refers to "these men" as "them" when Jesus tells "them" to stay put till comming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. And we know that after Pentecost the skeptics refered to the disciples as "men"
   • "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? "
2. After the ascension of Jesus the angles said in Acts 1:11
   • "Men of Galilee,"

Yeah, and we read that "these men" after they had returned from their journey, joined together with the women in the upper room in prayer in verse 14.

Act 1:12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away.
Act 1:13 And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James.
Act 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.

In the OT, I do not recall women particapating in the "drawing of lots" .. can you refer to an instance of where that happened in the OT? My memory can only think of men "casting \ drawing lots"

What does this have to do with anything? In fact, what does your entire post have to do with the topic of this thread which is the differences between the LCMS and the WELS?

 

[DaRev]

I didn't say it did equate. I said Judas was called by Jesus to be a disciple and was also the money keeper and asked you how Judas got that job, if Jesus didn't give it to him. I know the Scriptures do not say specifically how Judas got that job, but a logical conclusion from reading the Scriptures is that Jesus gave it to him.

You're jumping to a conclusion that the Scriptures don't make. The other disciples could have gotten together and given Judas that position. Judas could have had some background in his life that led him to assume that position. All of these could just as easily be "logical conclusions".
There is no question, however, that the Scriptures support the divine stablishment of the pastoral office.

 

[Zecryphon]

You're jumping to a conclusion that the Scriptures don't make. The other disciples could have gotten together and given Judas that position. Judas could have had some background in his life that led him to assume that position. All of these could just as easily be "logical conclusions".
There is no question, however, that the Scriptures support the divine stablishment of the pastoral office.

I don't know that I'm jumping to a conclusion that the Scriptures don't make. I'm reading what the scriptures say and drawing a conclusion based upon that. Yeah we know the Scriptures support the divine establishment of the pastoral office, but I agree with PW that the Scriptures support the divine establishment of other offices we see in the church as well. I know you don't, so can we just agree to disagree on this one?

 

[DaRev]

I think you just contradicted yourself. The passage shows how people are called to be things within the church and that those offices are appointed by God. It talks about teachers and administrators. Surely you're not saying the pastor serves in all of those capacities by himself...since you are claiming that the only God-appointed office is that of the pastor.

There are several other places in Scripture that talks about the establishment of the pastoral office. 1 Corinthians 12 is talking about the gifts of the spirit which enables people to do certain things. It is not about the establishment of offices in the congregation. You are trying to make it say something it simply doesn't say.

If it says that God appoints teachers, and I'm made a teacher in the WELS, who are you to say that it's not a divince call? Who are you to go against that passage that says that God appoints those offices?

You may have been given the gift of being able to teach, but how does that equate to establishing the office of teacher in a congregation? It doesn't. It simply means that you personally have the ability to teach.

So that's a yes on the vote for next month's potluck then. Gotcha. And again, if the women vote for hot dish and the guys vote for pizza and there's more women than men...well...at least we see the conundrum.

See, at our church, while voters don't determine doctrine (that's for the larger assembly) we do vote on real stuff, like funding for the school and calling our teachers and our principals, amongst other things. The women do have a voice...they can go through their husbands or the elders. I know this because even as a divorced single mom I had just as much voice in the voters meetings, if not more since I had a dad, a grandpa and two male teachers in my corner.

Your sarcasm isn't necessary. I'm trying to have a civil conversation with you. Do you want to continue with this?

Tell me how financial issues, property issues, hiring teachers, etc. are equated with the authority of the pastoral office? They simply don't.

I predict that because of the LCMS' loosey goosey stance with the role of women it won't be long before more and more LCMS churches are ordaining women.

It's not "loosey goosey". It's tied directly to the Scriptural teaching regarding the pastoral office. Having women serve in man made positions does not equate with ordaining them into the one divinely established office. If the WELS can't see that distinction that is so clear in Scripture, then that's their problem.

 

[DaRev]

Some LCMS churches may be doing that, I don't know for certain if they are or aren't.

There are no women ordained in LCMS congregations.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

There are no women ordained in LCMS congregations.

not that you're aware of, anyway.