tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post5415147121054766027..comments2024-02-27T00:11:57.219+11:00Comments on Extra Nos: No more Issues and Mt. ZionLPChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-26272573100766441802008-03-31T10:25:00.000+11:002008-03-31T10:25:00.000+11:00P.E.I guess I am a bit more cynical and more disap...P.E.<BR/><BR/>I guess I am a bit more cynical and more disappointed so in my book WELS is being sectarian in this respect. The same goes for individuals who divide in the minors.<BR/><BR/>LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-8860952482237281692008-03-31T00:38:00.000+11:002008-03-31T00:38:00.000+11:00Calling something sectarian depends on agreement o...Calling something sectarian depends on agreement on what is major and what is minor. From the standpoint of someone who sees as major something we see as minor it is not sectarian at all to insist that a major remain a major.<BR/><BR/>And that is our whole issue with "evangelicals" re Baptism. It is not that they are sectarian, it is that they do not have the same understanding of what is major that we do. It would be silly of us to expect them to recognise our baptism as valid as we do theirs. <BR/><BR/>Likewise WELS and LCMS on the issues that separate them. They cannot be approached on the basis of sectarianism or lack thereof. It is again a disagreement on what is major and what is minor, and until that is resolved there will not be a common view on what is sectarian. And further, that resolution would entail a change on their part as to what is major, which would be huge.<BR/><BR/>I think it's essential to understand that what may appear sectarian to me does not appear sectarian to someone else, because what to me is a permissible diversity is to them a fundamental error. Personally, I would not go so far as to say "evangelicals" are not Christian, but consider them in rather the same place as the RCs and EOs -- that while Christians and the Christian Church may be found among them, as church bodies they teach a mixture of true Christianity and much that, as you say, robs them of the benefit.<BR/><BR/>Before I found the Lutheran faith -- better said, before the grace of God worked faith in me -- I used to put it this way, borrowing the old phrase "all dressed up and no place to go": the RC and EO have places to go but don't know how to get dressed for it, and the evangelicals know how to get dressed for it but have no place to go.<BR/><BR/>We Lutherans have both, or rather, have it all.Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-86610042583344274862008-03-30T19:53:00.000+11:002008-03-30T19:53:00.000+11:00PE.precisely why we honor their baptism is because...PE.<BR/><BR/>precisely why we honor their baptism is because we are not sectarian, but they are.<BR/><BR/>We are not making a major thing a minor thing. Rather they are making a minor thing a major thing. We are keeping with the majors faithfully that is why we accept their baptism though they deny ours.<BR/><BR/>Nicene Creed...<BR/>"we acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins".<BR/><BR/>But at least you are granting them that they are not being sectarian is commendable, although I do not believe the arguments for saying they are not.<BR/><BR/>The fact that you equate their baptism with their understanding of the Gospel and the fact that you do not consider them to rightly gotten the Gospel makes them no Christian, by your standards. <BR/><BR/>They misunderstand that baptism is part of the Gospel, they think it is part of the Law. <BR/><BR/>Let me repeat the Gospel as defined by the AP IV: 238 ...<BR/><I>... the Gospel which <B>promises us </B> reconciliation and righteousness <B>if we believe</B> that for the sake of Christ, the propitiator, the Father is gracious to us and that the merits of Christ are granted to us</I><BR/><BR/>By enlarge the Evangelicals believe this. They may believe other things that may rob them of the benefits of this, but that is another matter, one of them is their mis-understanding of baptism.<BR/><BR/>So think we have settled awhile ago that the WELS position is sectarian, did we not?<BR/><BR/>LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-43358604011403689362008-03-30T12:45:00.000+11:002008-03-30T12:45:00.000+11:00Baptising as Christ commanded is totally related t...Baptising as Christ commanded is totally related to the Gospel, so where there are disagreements over what Christ commanded, there are disagreements over the Gospel.<BR/><BR/>Our understanding of Baptism does not invalidate a baptism done by them, but their understanding of Baptism makes our baptisms invalid, including the adult ones. It does not follow at all that we must re-baptise them if they re-baptise us -- and that precisely because we do not understand Baptism the same way, therefore we have no fellowship.<BR/><BR/>I cannot see this as a sectarian thing at all. From their point of view, we have made a major thing a minor thing. Why would they not re-baptise then? But for us, anyone may baptise so why would we re-baptise, unless there was some doubt about whether it was in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost?<BR/><BR/>It's not like a they sent me a Christmas card but I didn't send them one sort of thing!Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-16006578143539211562008-03-30T12:16:00.000+11:002008-03-30T12:16:00.000+11:00When you divide not on the basis of the Gospel, yo...When you divide not on the basis of the Gospel, you will be sectarian.<BR/><BR/>Evangelicals re-baptizing is dividing not on the basis of the Gospel. They re-baptize because they differ on the notion of faith - that it has to be reflexive, that is why they are looked at as heterodox i.e. defective but not neccesarily non-Christian.<BR/><BR/>It is us, and mind you us who consider them Christian -- it is them who consider us as non-Christian because we have a different understanding of being born again. <BR/><BR/>Here is my point, and if you believe they are not-being sectarian, and they have a different Gospel, then you will have to re-baptize them when they become Lutheran. This is following the logic that you espouse, bro.<BR/><BR/>But we do no such thing, we do not re-baptize a baptized Fundamentalist Baptist who becomes Lutheran, do we?<BR/><BR/>The mark of fundamentalism is separating on issues not related to the Gospel. It is making minor a major.<BR/><BR/>LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-46870309625631122102008-03-29T16:44:00.000+11:002008-03-29T16:44:00.000+11:00Our Evangelical (in the modern sense, it used to b...Our Evangelical (in the modern sense, it used to be us!) brethren are doing no such thing.<BR/><BR/>If Baptism by the institution of Christ involves full immersion after a profession of faith by one who has reached the age of accountability, then anyone baptised by infant baptism has not been baptised at all but subjected to a rite apart from Christ's institution. Therefore they must be baptised, not again but for the first time. "Catholic" cannot include both what is of Christ's institution and what violates it on the same matter.<BR/><BR/>They are being true to their understanding of the Gospel, not sectarian at all. If their understanding of the Gospel is right, their practice re other ways of baptising is right. I don't agree with their understanding of the Gospel, and at the same time respect their integrity for not accepting, say, my infant baptism: if they're right I was baptised wrong and indeed not baptised at all.Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-18873277472300221262008-03-28T17:29:00.000+11:002008-03-28T17:29:00.000+11:00P.E.Catholics may define what Catholic is; they do...P.E.<BR/><BR/><I>Catholics may define what Catholic is; they do not define what catholic is</I><BR/><BR/>That would be special pleading wouldn't it following the reasoning that we were just discussing.<BR/><BR/>It is interesting that in CFW Walther's article he did not even want to get hooked on the word 'catholic'. <BR/><BR/>Let me give an example, when our Evangelical bros/sis re-baptize, they are being uncatholic - in short being sectarian in that they do not recognize other Christian's baptism. The anti-thesis of being catholic is being sectarian. Which is what sometimes synods get hang up.<BR/><BR/>It is being similar to Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism when people would divide on one's eschatology. <BR/><BR/>Which is why I say some synods exhibit a kind of 'fundamentalism', this time it is a Lutheran one.<BR/><BR/>LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-55136713294925739162008-03-28T15:56:00.000+11:002008-03-28T15:56:00.000+11:00Catholics may define what Catholic is; they do not...Catholics may define what Catholic is; they do not define what catholic is.<BR/><BR/>Yes the divisions among Lutherans, and among Christians generally, are sad, however, that's the way it is -- if I maintain something is of the institution of Christ and you say it is human, or if say you maintain something is of Christ and I say it's human, we are simply not in fellowship and one of us is wrong, falsifying Christ however unintentionally. While I, and LCMS, would say this does not necessarity prevent co-operating on things where we agree, it does mean, for example, that we do not commune, since we are not in communion.<BR/><BR/>We do not decide we are one, then decide what one is. We are one as a result of agreement on what one is.<BR/><BR/>That is one way of expressing why the Joint Declaration is so meaningless -- it presents itself as the latter when it is the former.Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-48193010760075272002008-03-28T15:18:00.000+11:002008-03-28T15:18:00.000+11:00P.E.I do agree with regards to WELS, I am sad that...P.E.<BR/><BR/>I do agree with regards to WELS, I am sad that such a thing became the basis of division and parting of the ways.<BR/><BR/>Well if only Lutherans are allowed to define who they are (and I agree), then only Catholics should be allowed to define what catholicism/Catholicism is. It is a double edged sword.<BR/><BR/>My approach is shared ontology or we might say consensus of historical scholarship. This way we somehow avoid post-modernization.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-57379389073070247112008-03-28T13:54:00.000+11:002008-03-28T13:54:00.000+11:00If I will not allow the world to tell me what cath...If I will not allow the world to tell me what catholic means in its religious usage, then predictably I don't suppose I will be much impressed when an Anglican tells me what Lutheran means.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me obvious beyond any possible need for discussion that to maintain Christ established a call which is the same when issued by any body of Christians be they a synod or a school or a parish or whatever and the positions to which the call calls one therefore are the same call with different particulars established by Man is a position, whether right or wrong, that does not admit of fellowship with those who maintain this is quite false and Christ did no such thing.<BR/><BR/>However, the answer to my own question becomes clearer as this thread proceeds -- I think what the deal is in having to find "diversity" essential in catholicity is not fully disengaging catholic from Roman, ie that which one must not be, even if it means losing what is catholic over what is Catholic.Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-44069798612310897922008-03-27T22:33:00.000+11:002008-03-27T22:33:00.000+11:00Additionally I happen to keep my posts and I recal...Additionally I happen to keep my posts and I recall the disagreements I had with the very reverend Fr. Bollywood.<BR/><BR/>He uses the term Catholic for the Lutheran church. Note the big C.<BR/><BR/>Now this made me now recall CFW Walther's article in which he did not even want to use 'catholic' to describe Lutherans because of that big C or small c confusion. The man was wise in this respect. But with the Society of Saint Polycrap's take, they do not mind calling themselves Catholic (big C).So there you go, the slide to sophistry is well on the way.<BR/><BR/>Heck, if they are willing to be Catholic, they might as well be genuine and kiss the Pope's ring. No wonder Schuetzie calls them to follow the courage of their conviction. Be Roman.<BR/><BR/>LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-91050156923312310622008-03-27T20:54:00.000+11:002008-03-27T20:54:00.000+11:00P.E.IIRC, Fr. Bollywood's refusal to admit the ord...P.E.<BR/><BR/>IIRC, Fr. Bollywood's refusal to admit the ordinary meaning of Protestant, invites himself to be misunderstood. It makes cliques -- of a different kind.<BR/><BR/>When non-essentials are made essential, you can see that the main focus is no longer agreement in the Gospel or in abbreviation JBFA.<BR/><BR/>Catholicity in terms of variety is taught in the NT - there is no more Jew nor Greek, slave or free, all one in Christ Jesus. There is no difference between the circumcised to the uncircumcised, God unites us through our common saviour, but we keep on making mud puddles.<BR/><BR/>WELS indeed is indeed wrong in breaking fellowship with LCMS.<BR/><BR/>At any rate, WELS/LCMS I come now to see as an expression of American Confessional Lutheranism. We must not forget that it is possible that the European Confessional Lutherans may not be in agreement with that expression.<BR/><BR/>In this regard it really is a misnomer the claim that one's synod is orthodox.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-18482743283652315542008-03-27T20:43:00.000+11:002008-03-27T20:43:00.000+11:00This is why we can confess I BELIEVE in a holy cat...This is why we can confess I BELIEVE in a holy catholic Church. The catholicity and unity of the Church is a matter of faith, not sight. No synod can establish that. The Church is revealed precisely in the proclamation of the Gospel in Word and Sacraments. Any other form is human exigency.<BR/><BR/>This is one of the reasons why Mr. Hollywood and his ilk are dead wrong. They want to make church unity a matter of SIGHT. Well, then you are no Lutheran, Mister. You are an imposter and a charlatan. The honest thing to do is to repent and return to the Church of the Lutheran Confessions.Augustinian Successorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04701412663559781833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-62352915087991570772008-03-27T20:39:00.000+11:002008-03-27T20:39:00.000+11:00Catholicity is this: that the wholeness of the und...Catholicity is this: that the wholeness of the undivided and singular Faith is preserved and maintained and confessed and professed by a Church in the diversity of Church through its local expression, that is to say that the Substance of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Faith is expressed in different cultures, times and locations.<BR/><BR/>That's catholicity for you.Augustinian Successorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04701412663559781833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-35039998449233287682008-03-27T20:34:00.000+11:002008-03-27T20:34:00.000+11:00Listen here, limiting catholicity to just wholenes...Listen here, limiting catholicity to just wholeness is self-contradictory. It is essentially a misunderstanding of the term catholic. This is why Mr. Hollywood is dead wrong in persisting in his erroneous thinking.<BR/><BR/>It is clear except to those who refuse to accept that the WELS is in error regarding its refusal of fellowship with the LCMS grounds, which I have just shared. <BR/><BR/>Their position is not misunderstood, but precisely is in error. So, we are discussing two errors here today. The WELS error of confusing synod as church only by human arrangement and synod as church by divine appointment. To insist as the WELS does is to invite more problems than applying solutions.Augustinian Successorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04701412663559781833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-8480717635551761682008-03-27T19:07:00.000+11:002008-03-27T19:07:00.000+11:00What is it that is trying to be maintained by find...What is it that is trying to be maintained by finding diversity essential to catholicity?<BR/><BR/>For a different example, the word apologetics. In ordinary language, to apologise means to say I'm sorry. In ecclesiastical usage it means nothing of the sort, but means to set out a defence of something. One word, more than one meaning.<BR/><BR/>Who though would say, in discussing Christian apologetics, but it also means saying you're sorry, it has to at least imply that, since that is what the word means according to the dictionary and usual usage? It makes no sense.<BR/><BR/>Another example would be the medical and the usual meaning of insult.<BR/><BR/>This catholicity/diversity thing makes no sense either, on the same grounds.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps that is why Fr Hollywood is not understood at all either. Or, for that matter, the differences between LCMS and WELS or why, given those differences, fellowship between the two cannot be.Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-69115117188501725902008-03-27T15:47:00.001+11:002008-03-27T15:47:00.001+11:00I gotcha.I will have problem with WELS too I think...I gotcha.<BR/><BR/>I will have problem with WELS too I think rather, they will have a problem with me.<BR/><BR/>LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-457383640163307982008-03-27T15:47:00.000+11:002008-03-27T15:47:00.000+11:00But the thing is that is not the only meaning of t...But the thing is that is not the only meaning of the term, catholic. Universality, wholeness, necessarily imply diversity UNLESS the distinction between the hidden and revealed Church is collapsed. It's either ecclesial totalitarianism or sectarian legalism.<BR/><BR/>That is why Roman Catholic Church is a self-contradiction. There is diversity of views in theology and liturgy. The Roman Church cannot claim catholicity on non-essential matters. Likewise, Baptists cannot claim apostolicity on non-essentials.<BR/><BR/>It's precisely people like Mr. Hollywood that claim non-essentials as marks of catholicity. He is dead wrong. That would be to confuse form with substance. The liturgy is a vehicle for catholicity in action, but does NOT necessarily COINCIDE with catholicity.Augustinian Successorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04701412663559781833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-78954688277301373102008-03-27T15:14:00.000+11:002008-03-27T15:14:00.000+11:00It's not the definition of church but the definiti...It's not the definition of church but the definition of catholic -- of or relating to the whole, not the diverse elements which may be legitimately part of the whole.<BR/><BR/>The WELS/LCMS rift is about what is church, not what is catholic. One of the three major reasons I left WELS for LCMS is that understanding of church and related lack of understanding about the Office of Holy Ministry, and one of the reasons why the ELCA was never in my mind as a possibility, not being Lutheran at all except in name, though I might add within it one can find outstanding individual Lutherans and congregations here and there.Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-82477888038512061482008-03-27T14:29:00.000+11:002008-03-27T14:29:00.000+11:00Actually Fr. Bollywood was not quibbling with 'cat...Actually Fr. Bollywood was not quibbling with 'catholic' he was quibbling with Lutheran being 'protestant', IIRC. He did not like Lutheran being 'protestant'.<BR/><BR/><I>No a church without a permanent pastor does not cease to be church.</I><BR/><BR/>This is what I want to get at. Sure, no one should preach unless the congregation allows that person the priviledge. That is a different matter.<BR/><BR/>What I am getting at is that the definition of church is not tied to a pastor. Church is ekklessia 'the called out ones, people called by God to become a people for himself'.<BR/><BR/>As I said, the orthodox Protestant understanding of church and ministry is that the Scripture is the one that creates the church and the one that creates the ministry.<BR/><BR/>The ministry does not create the church, necessarily.<BR/><BR/>LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-22869007946846356592008-03-27T14:08:00.000+11:002008-03-27T14:08:00.000+11:00The meaning of "catholic" in early church writings...The meaning of "catholic" in early church writings has a specific reference, and the reference is not other meanings the word has acquired. When I was younger, one could still for example hear a person described as having "catholic tastes", meaning a wide ranging set of interests -- diverse. This in no way meant to say their tastes were Catholic as in RC, or catholic in the non-Roman ecclesiastical use of the term. So, neither does the Catholic or the non-Roman ecclesiastical use of term mean what the world generally means. Fr Hollywood is quite right on that.<BR/><BR/>"Communion" is another such term. We do not derive our understanding of it re the Sacrament from the world's meaning. "Liturgy" would be the same except the world has abandoned it use of the term as a beneficial act for the citizenry undertaken at the expense of a wealthy free class member. For that matter, there are in many professions words that have a specific meaning within that profession, usually called "technical terms", apart from the meaning in general usage. This is just a simple fact of language.<BR/><BR/>No a church without a permanent pastor does not cease to be church. It forms a call committee and eventually installs another pastor. No-one just rises to the office. Absolutely no-one is to preach or administer the Sacraments in the Office of Holy Ministry without a proper call. To abandon this is as apart from the faith of the Lutheran Confessions as to make the process by which the church selects its public ministers into a sacrament itself.Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-51531108509995182302008-03-26T21:53:00.000+11:002008-03-26T21:53:00.000+11:00A.S./P.E.My initial reaction is that I do not sit ...A.S./P.E.<BR/><BR/>My initial reaction is that I do not sit well with the WELS and LCMS understanding of church. Both of them I think are out in left field. It is amazing though that such a point has become a basis of fellowship and dis-unity.<BR/><BR/>For the LC-MS, if the pastor and congregation constitute a church, what happens when the pastor leaves the congregation as they often do???!!!<BR/><BR/>They can take a call somewhere else. So does that mean that those folk meeting on a Sunday for fellowship cease to be church? That definition provided by P.E. sounds Romanist to me. It means it is the ministry that creates the church.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Rather, the Protestant view from what I can gather is that it is the Word of God that creates the church and the **ministry**><BR/><BR/>Get those folk without a pastor meeting around the Word and pretty soon God will send them or cause one of them to rise up to the office of the elder/pastor. God makes that happen because they are the church not the other way around.LPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-81831190932945964252008-03-26T17:55:00.000+11:002008-03-26T17:55:00.000+11:00As I have said before and I'll say it again, the W...As I have said before and I'll say it again, the WELS understanding of the Synod as Church carries with the hierarchical baggage. I don't give a snap if it's voters' supremacy, monarchical episcopacy or bureaucracy, the result's the same. <BR/><BR/>You jest canNOT haev a situation where the local congregation's ministry is divinely instituted whether qua ministry or plus the specific offices within the ministry and then says nothing about the church leadership for the synod - human arrangement/convenience or divine mandate???<BR/><BR/>This to say that there is no confessional and Scriptural warrant to say that the Synod has a separate existence from the local congregations. <BR/><BR/>Put it in a more Lutheran package, ...... THERE IS NO HIGHER OR BROADER AUTHORITY THAN THE AUTHORITY OF PROCLAIMING THE GOSPEL IN WORD AND SACRAMENTS. <BR/><BR/>SATIS EST ... it is enough that churches agree on the proclamation of the Word and Gospel. Period ... says the Augsburg Confession.<BR/><BR/>To insist beyond the public ministry which is specifically tied to the local congregation is to breach the eschatological limits and confuse the hidden church with the revealed church ... a very unLutheran confusion, it must be said.<BR/><BR/>The unity of the congregations or churches is a matter of FAITH, not sight. Just as individuals who make up the ekklesia are justified by faith alone, so likewise the unity of the churches is a matter of faith alone.<BR/><BR/>Beyond that is a matter NOT of DIVINE institution but human arrangement. Which is why it to include the synod as a divine institution cannot be but hierarchical.<BR/><BR/>The WELS, which is why I have said despite its low church reputation, it is another variant of Lutheran Puritanism and much more closer to Rome in that respect. <BR/><BR/>As for the term catholicity, it is clear that it implies and says something about diversity. Of course it does. To limit the term to just the whole is a self-contradiction, which is precisely why the name Roman Catholic Church is a misnomer.Augustinian Successorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04701412663559781833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-60561647951078484152008-03-26T17:04:00.000+11:002008-03-26T17:04:00.000+11:00P.E.I can appreciate the accuracy and "for the rec...P.E.<BR/><BR/>I can appreciate the accuracy and "for the record". I am not convinced though that you have to have a pastor in order for Jesus to be in the midst of disciples.<BR/><BR/>Any two or three who are gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst - Jesus said that.<BR/><BR/>I do not believe that - because the Real Pastor promises to be there. All others are hirelings. No offense, I was a pastor too.<BR/><BR/><I>As to catholicity, the dictionary does not determine what we mean by<BR/>that word. Its usage as a Christian term began with a desciption of the<BR/>whole, or catholic, church being found wherever an overseer (usually<BR/>translated bishop, which is not to endorse RC or EO understandings of<BR/>that term) is with his flock at the Divine Service, as we usually call it. </I><BR/><BR/>Bro, this though reminded me of my debate with the so called Fr. Bollywood and what he did with the term Protestant. He refuses to accept the historical meaning of the term supplied by Wikipaedia as if Wikipaedia had no scholarlly credibility.<BR/><BR/>Don't follow his philosophy, bro. That kind has a way of turning people into a clique, detaching them from the people they must reach and relate.<BR/><BR/>LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-51015811935372172862008-03-26T15:48:00.000+11:002008-03-26T15:48:00.000+11:00Maybe it has been lost here, however, if I agreed ...Maybe it has been lost here, however, if I agreed with the WELS position I would still be WELS. I'm not. I'm LCMS. Stating the WELS position is to do just that -- state it, as it is held by those who hold it, not as it appears to those who don't.<BR/><BR/>Read the black.<BR/><BR/>The WELS belief is that what is of divine institution is the call, and the specific shape and content of the call is determined by the church. So, whether "two or three gather to-gether" as a synod or as a local congregation, each is equally church. And when church, either as synod, school, parish, or whatever, calls a person the call is the same whether it be to pastor, teacher, principal, administrator, etc. There is nothing like an episcopate in it. And again, I say this not by way of agreement, but accuracy: I don't agree with the position, but that is what the position is.<BR/><BR/>Similarly the issue of fellowship. WELS maintains there must be agreement on all points of Scripture for any fellowship to happen, therefore absent such agreement, fellowship from table grace to synodical recognition is impossible and a mockery of what fellowship is.<BR/><BR/>As to catholicity, the dictionary does not determine what we mean by that word. Its usage as a Christian term began with a desciption of the whole, or catholic, church being found wherever an overseer (usually translated bishop, which is not to endorse RC or EO understandings of that term) is with his flock at the Divine Service, as we usually call it.<BR/><BR/>I do not hold to all of the views of WELS, but I do not at all begrudge them saying there is no fellowship then with those with whom they are not fellows. That's just the way it is. I disagree with their take on some of what is held to be the Lutheran faith of the confessions, but I respect their integrity in insisting on there being fellowship before saying there's fellowship, and that fellowship is not created by asserting a fellowship when there is fundamental disagreement on some matters. IOW, one may disagree with some of a church body's beliefs, but agree that the church body certainly can articulate its beliefs and insist that those who seek membership in or fellowship with them accept those beliefs.Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.com