Will I be able to join the LCMS?

[jinc1019]

As I said before, context is king.
In the Lutheran Church, reason and historical context are not part of the hermeneutic. Scripture interprets Scripture. That's precisely why the Lutheran Church does not teach that women must keep their heads covered and any number of other things. Some parts of Scripture are to be read and applied literally, some parts are metaphorical. How do we know which is which? Context!! Context is king.

The integrity of the Scriptures is of utmost importance in the LCMS.



It's not the LCMS' interpretation. Scripture interprets Scripture, and since Scripture is God's inspired word and without error, it is God's interpretation.

With all due respect...I don't understand how you could read the passages I alluded to above knowing ONLY the context within the Bible and still come to the conclusion that women SHOULDN'T be told to keep absolutely silent and to keep their heads covered. Only knowledge of the historical context and the use of reason can come to that conclusion. What is scripture gives one the impression that those commands were culturally-specific? I can't find anything at all. I know it is culturally specific and time specific because of reason and historical context, not because of the context within the scriptures.

 

[DaRev]

With all due respect...I don't understand how you could read the passages I alluded to above knowing ONLY the context within the Bible and still come to the conclusion that women SHOULDN'T be told to keep absolutely silent and to keep their heads covered. Only knowledge of the historical context and the use of reason can come to that conclusion. What is scripture gives one the impression that those commands were culturally-specific? I can't find anything at all. I know it is culturally specific and time specific because of reason and historical context, not because of the context within the scriptures.

Paul is using a cultural act as an object lesson to prove another point. The context of Scripture as a whole does not support a command for women to keep their heads covered, but the point that Paul was making using that scenario is supported. That's how Scripture interprets Scripture.

 

[jinc1019]

Your interpretation of Paul's interpretation is just that...an interpretation. Scripture does not clearly say that is what Paul is saying at all. It's an opinion you have, that I believe is accurate, but that opinion is based on your understanding of the cultural and historical context of the region Paul was writing to, not because scripture somehow made that plain.

 

[DaRev]

Your interpretation of Paul's interpretation is just that...an interpretation. Scripture does not clearly say that is what Paul is saying at all. It's an opinion you have, that I believe is accurate, but that opinion is based on your understanding of the cultural and historical context of the region Paul was writing to, not because scripture somehow made that plain.

Nothing I teach is "my opinion" and I resent your attitude.

The Scriptures say what they say. You obviously don't like it and want it to say something to your own liking. A lot of people have itchy ears.

I would suggest you look for a church that holds to the heterodox teachings that you agree with. There is no point in you seeking membership in the LCMS. We are not going to change what we teach just to satisfy itching ears. It's obvious you don't agree and are not in fellowship with us.

 

[jinc1019]

Nothing I teach is "my opinion" and I resent your attitude.

The Scriptures say what they say. You obviously don't like it and want it to say something to your own liking. A lot of people have itchy ears.

I would suggest you look for a church that holds to the heterodox teachings that you agree with. There is no point in you seeking membership in the LCMS. We are not going to change what we teach just to satisfy itching ears. It's obvious you don't agree and are not in fellowship with us.

My whole point is...the scriptures do not say what you are saying. Show me where in the Scriptures it says Paul was only speaking culturally. That's the claim you are making. The plain reading of scripture does NOT say that. If I am wrong, then show me where in Scripture it says he is speaking the way you claim he is.

I am in agreement with you on the interpretation of Paul's passage...so I am not sure why you are acting as though I am not. But the fact remains that the only way to get to that conclusion is by understanding the historical context.

 

[jinc1019]

Nothing I teach is "my opinion" and I resent your attitude.

The Scriptures say what they say. You obviously don't like it and want it to say something to your own liking. A lot of people have itchy ears.

I would suggest you look for a church that holds to the heterodox teachings that you agree with. There is no point in you seeking membership in the LCMS. We are not going to change what we teach just to satisfy itching ears. It's obvious you don't agree and are not in fellowship with us.

And by the way, how do I want the scriptures to say what is "my own liking?" Where did I say anything that would lead you to honestly come to that conclusion? We are in agreement on the meaning of this passage.

 

[ThisEbenezer]

Jinc1019, I would highly encourage you to call your local LCMS church and ask for a cup of coffee with the Pastor there. Face to face, perhaps he can discuss your concerns with you and perhaps get you into the introductory classes of the congregation so you can learn more. I think that is a much better way to understand what the LCMS is about rather than debate on a message board.

Good luck!
Ebenezer

 

[jinc1019]

Jinc1019, I would highly encourage you to call your local LCMS church and ask for a cup of coffee with the Pastor there. Face to face, perhaps he can discuss your concerns with you and perhaps get you into the introductory classes of the congregation so you can learn more. I think that is a much better way to understand what the LCMS is about rather than debate on a message board.

Good luck!
Ebenezer

I am absolutely considering it...but truthfully, I just don't know if I am ready for that yet. I appreciate the concern and advice!

 

[Tangible]

Or just start attending services. That's what we did. Everything else just fell in line.

 

[jinc1019]

Yes, not bad advice at all!

 

[HermanNeutics13]

The two issues brought up are important. First the Bible does explicitly state that it was a literal six day creation when it says "there was evening and there was morning". How else could this possibly be understood? I do know some LCMS Lutherans who reject this and so that is problematic but any pastor who doesn't hold to six day creation shouldn't be a pastor.
As for the office of the Pope being the anti-Christ this is something Luther is well known for. The Pope puts him self in the place of Christ. Michelle Bachmann was a Lutheran (WELS I believe) up until about the time she started running for president. She left the Lutheran church because of this doctrine and probably it was a political move to avoid alienating Catholic voters.

 

[jinc1019]

The two issues brought up are important. First the Bible does explicitly state that it was a literal six day creation when it says "there was evening and there was morning". How else could this possibly be understood? I do know some LCMS Lutherans who reject this and so that is problematic but any pastor who doesn't hold to six day creation shouldn't be a pastor.
As for the office of the Pope being the anti-Christ this is something Luther is well known for. The Pope puts him self in the place of Christ. Michelle Bachmann was a Lutheran (WELS I believe) up until about the time she started running for president. She left the Lutheran church because of this doctrine and probably it was a political move to avoid alienating Catholic voters.

I have heard all of this yes...I don't disagree that the Bible says this...Only that it is obviously and scientifically untrue, which leads me to believe the Bible must be teaching it, in some fashion, figuratively. The definition of "day," for instance, could be something different.

As for the papal infallibility thing...is one of three MAIN things that keep me from being Lutheran.

 

[DaRev]

I have heard all of this yes...I don't disagree that the Bible says this...Only that it is obviously and scientifically untrue, which leads me to believe the Bible must be teaching it, in some fashion, figuratively. The definition of "day," for instance, could be something different.

Context dictates the meanings of words in given texts. There is nothing in the context of either Genesis or Scripture as a whole (including the numerous passages where the Creation account is referenced) that even suggests that the word "day" means anything other than a 24 period, and that the 6 days of Creation are anything but consecutive. Man made theories do not trump the word of God.

 

[QuiltAngel]

Expecting science to explain God just seems so wrong. Also, science is based on hypothesis. No one was there when God created the world. Just because science can not prove God's creation does not mean that God could not have done it that way.

 

[jinc1019]

Expecting science to explain God just seems so wrong. Also, science is based on hypothesis. No one was there when God created the world. Just because science can not prove God's creation does not mean that God could not have done it that way.

Anything is possible of course. But the evidence says it wasn't literal...and throughout the history of Christianity, other very prominent Christians and leaders have believed the Creation story was figurative as well. So obviously I am not alone in that belief.

 

[DaRev]

Anything is possible of course. But the evidence says it wasn't literal...

Actually, if the evidence is looked at cleanly, and not through the lens of a particular theory, it does indeed support the Bible's account of Creation. Man made science will say "It must have happened this way" and then force the evidence to fit that theory. True science will look at the evidence as pieces to a puzzle that have to be put together first in order to come to a conclusion. That's the problem with modern "science". They make up a conclusion first, then try to make the pieces fit. That's why their conclusions have changed so much over the years. What I was taught in science class in school is very different than what is taught today.

I'll take God's word on the matter before I'll take the word of sinful man any day.

...and throughout the history of Christianity, other very prominent Christians and leaders have believed the Creation story was figurative as well. So obviously I am not alone in that belief.

"Very prominent Christians and leaders" have come up with the the papacy and believers baptism and the Lord's Supper being symbolic and decision theology and a whole host of things that are contrary to the word of God. Don't put your faith in the words of sinful men. That's idolatry. Place your faith in the inspired word of God. You may not fully comprehend at first, but the Spirit will lead to all truth. That's His job.

 

[HermanNeutics13]

Anything is possible of course. But the evidence says it wasn't literal...and throughout the history of Christianity, other very prominent Christians and leaders have believed the Creation story was figurative as well. So obviously I am not alone in that belief.

The debate with Early Christians was actually between a literal b day creation and an instantaneous creation so it was pretty much the opposite from what we have today.

 

[QuiltAngel]

The debate with Early Christians was actually between a literal b day creation and an instantaneous creation so it was pretty much the opposite from what we have today.

As a young child, I thought it was an instantaneous creation, then as I grew up and read Genesis closely, I came to realize it wasn't instant, but 6 days.

The opening words of Genesis is "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Until you read or hear further, it is easy to think it was one instant.

I still say that science can not prove it was anything other than 6 days either.

 

[jinc1019]

Actually, if the evidence is looked at cleanly, and not through the lens of a particular theory, it does indeed support the Bible's account of Creation. Man made science will say "It must have happened this way" and then force the evidence to fit that theory. True science will look at the evidence as pieces to a puzzle that have to be put together first in order to come to a conclusion. That's the problem with modern "science". They make up a conclusion first, then try to make the pieces fit. That's why their conclusions have changed so much over the years. What I was taught in science class in school is very different than what is taught today.

I'll take God's word on the matter before I'll take the word of sinful man any day.



"Very prominent Christians and leaders" have come up with the the papacy and believers baptism and the Lord's Supper being symbolic and decision theology and a whole host of things that are contrary to the word of God. Don't put your faith in the words of sinful men. That's idolatry. Place your faith in the inspired word of God. You may not fully comprehend at first, but the Spirit will lead to all truth. That's His job.

The scientific evidence says what it says...and what it says is that some form of evolution did occur.

 

[jinc1019]

The debate with Early Christians was actually between a literal b day creation and an instantaneous creation so it was pretty much the opposite from what we have today.

That is not entirely accurate, no. And it's not the point either...Early Christians didn't have the evidence we have today.