1] 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, 2] the Holy Ghost is given, who works faith; where and when it pleases God, in them that hear 3] the Gospel, to wit, that God, not for our own merits, but for Christ's sake, justifies those who believe that they are received into grace for Christ's sake.
4] They condemn the Anabaptists, Fuller Seminary, Willow Creek, Leonard Sweet, and others who think that the Holy Ghost comes to men without the external Word, through their own preparations and works.
Is there a biblical passage that one can point to in this discussion? How about Ephesians 4:11-12? Doesn't "works of service" translate to "works of ministry" in the Greek?
Sorry, but the NIV contains a perfectly legitimate translation of Ephesians 4:12. Sure, you can wrangle and wrestle it to make "to do works of ministry" apply to "apostles, prophets..." and not the the "saints of God", but that's not the clear and simple translation. It's merely the wrangling and wrestling of those who are reading their predetermined viewpoint back into Scripture. That's a huge no-no when it comes to interpreting the Bible.
So, anonymous, get yourself into the Greek, then you won't have to worry about bad translations.
diakovias, noun, fem. sing. gen. the role or position of serving — ‘ministry, task.’ ‘that I may complete my course of life and my ministry which I received from the Lord’ (Acts 20:24) Louw & Nida
How about the KJV?
Eph. 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
How about the NRSV?
Eph. 4:12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,.
How about the NET?
Eph. 4:12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, that is, to build up the body of Christ.
Arguments can be made for both translations of Eph. 4:12. The real issue is, what do you hope to prove from it. Those who claim it is in reference to the saints use it for the deputization of the laity for the works of the Holy Ministry. Those who say it is in reference to the apostles etc. say it explains why Christ gave such to the church.
Those in favor of the former view are taking a giant leap in logic, however - even if that is the proper translation - when they assume this ministry or service is work of the office of the Holy Ministry and not the simple and blessed daily service of the laity in their life and vocation. That view finds itself out of synx with the rest of the Scriptures (thus AC XIV). That is the view that says "we are all ministers/pastors/bishops etc" and that the role of the pastor/minister/bishop is to make little pastors/ministers/bishops, which as one wit once said leads the sheep into strange pastures where they eat hallucinating grasses which make them think they are all pastors.
No one is trying to use Ephesians 4:12 to say that the all the laity are in the OHM/public/representative ministry. That's a gross caricature of my position (and the WELS position). I believe that JS simply quoted that passage in the first place to demonstrate that the word "ministry" can and is used in reference to laity. That seems to be more than some here are even willing to admit.
I'm glad though that you admit that the word "ministry" has a broader spectrum of meanings than "OHM, and only OHM". Some hyper-Missourians, when they hear the word, insist it means, and can only mean, OHM. If people would simply realize that the word "ministry" has different definitions and has been used differently in different eras, much of this needless wrangling would evaporate.
Indeed, I do prefer the KJV. Your reading needs a little work. "Eph. 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" Note the comma between the first two sections. Those gifts, (those in the OHM) were given for those three reasons: perfecting of the saints, work of the ministry, edifying of the body of Christ.
And Anonymous @ 12:13,
Know thyself. The WELS puts everyone including janitors and VBS volunteers into the "public ministry". If you don't believe me, head on over to www.wels.net.
"Know thyself. The WELS puts everyone including janitors and VBS volunteers into the "public ministry"."
Only if you purposely rip one sentence in one paper completely out of context and then conveniently ignore every other sentence of said paper so as to paint a wild caricature of the WELS' actual position.
If you want to seriously discuss these issues, you need to drop these caricatures and deal honestly with the actual WELS position.
I find it interesting that you answer a question of mine that I submitted but that has not been posted. I will answer your question.
A quick look at Scripture reveals that various forms of ministry existed in the New Testament churches. (1 Ti 3:2 and 8; 1 Tim 5:17; Eph 4:11; 1 Co 12:28; Ro 12:6-8, etc.). Among the forms named are apostles, prophets, evangelists, elders/overseers, pastors and teachers (syntactically one role), and deacons. All of these men are specifically said to be serving in divinely established ministries (1 Co 12:28; Eph 4:11, 12).
There were also different forms of public ministry in the Old Testament. Priests were differentiated from Levites, and there were various forms of ministry among the Levites, not all of which involved direct use of the Old Testament means of grace.
Various forms of ministry have been recognized throughout church history, including the time of the Reformation. Luther states this very clearly in his "Sermon on Keeping Children in School": The estate that I am thinking of is rather one which has the office of preaching and the service of the word and sacrament and which imparts the Spirit and salvation, blessings that cannot be obtained by any amount of pomp and pageantry. It includes the work of pastors, teachers, preachers, lectors, priests (whom men call chaplains), sacristans, schoolmasters, and whatever other works belong to these offices and persons (LW 46, p 220).
In its widest and most basic sense the term "the ministry" refers to the gospel ministry or the ministry of the Word established by Christ and given to the whole church. (2 Cor. 3:7-9)
It would appear to be that the pastoral ministry is not instituted in contrast to or to the exclusion of other forms of the ministry.
"Some hyper-Missourians, when they hear the word, insist it means, and can only mean, OHM." There is not a single so called "hyper-Missourian" (whatever that is) who would insist that every occurance of the word diakonia in the NT has reference to the OHM. Please provide proof of that assertion if you don't agree and I will happily concede that point.
Unfortunately that misuse and over application of the word runs rampant in the WS as evidenced by the WS statements on the ministry (and you will find this is Prof. John Brenner's paper on the "Issues in WELS" site) that says that the Acts 6 table service is that of the Public Ministry.
Just shout'in,
John 20:20-23, Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16: 15-16, Romans 10:14-17 is the short list off the top of my head. (Acts 20:20, 1 Timothy 3 and Titus one also speak to the issue)
You write, "I find it interesting that you answer a question of mine that I submitted but that has not been posted. I will answer your question."
I have no idea what you are talking about.
What is all this blather about "forms"? That is a giant leap in welsian logic that because the incumbents of the Office of the Holy Ministry in Scripture are called various things that that somehow constitutes different "forms." The pastor of our church is called pastor, minister, clergyman, father, reverend, teacher and a few things I can't mention in polite society. But there is one office, the office of preaching the Gospel and administrating the Sacraments, an authoritative office in the congregation to bind and loose sins, an office that is fenced by 1 Timothy 3:1-11, Titus 1:5-9, 1 Timothy 2:11-14 and 1 Cor. 14 34ff and which has no ranks. The oft quoted quote from Luther needs the context that these were all duties and positions filled by and performed by the ordained. One wonders why the WELS never quotes Luther when he excludes women from the Ministry. As for confusion about terms, I always laugh when the WELS stomps its foot and says "we don't have women pastors." Yes you do, for that is simply one title of many that can be given to any within the Office.
Your also write "In its widest and most basic sense the term "the ministry" refers to the gospel ministry or the ministry of the Word established by Christ and given to the whole church. (2 Cor. 3:7-9)"
Read the context. Yes, this "ministry" was given to the church, but not every one is in it as you suggest (correct me if I am wrong). The preceding verses (as the whole letter) tell us Paul is speaking about himself and those who serve in the ministry (see v. 1 and also 6:1). In this context the "we's" refer to Paul and those ritely called and the "you's" to the Corinthians.
You asked me (and I answered) "What passage do you point to to support your position on ministry?" And you?
"Only if you purposely rip one sentence in one paper completely out of context and then conveniently ignore every other sentence of said paper so as to paint a wild caricature of the WELS' actual position. If you want to seriously discuss these issues, you need to drop these caricatures and deal honestly with the actual WELS position."
A. That was not "ripped out of context." And it was in the Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, the OFFICIAL journal of the WELS.
B. This view is found throughout the WELs, example, from a sermon by Ben Berger, WELS, Mt. Olive, Appleton,
"If you want to seriously discuss these issues, you need to drop these caricatures and deal honestly with the actual WELS position."
Ok. Now that the WELS position (eg. baristas, janitors etc. are in the Office of the Holy Ministry) exposed above has been shown not to be a caricature, are you will to honestly deal with it? The last day's silence from you suggests you aren't. Correct me if I am wrong.
Yet as it stands. You would be the only one insisting that "Baristas" are pastors. Soooo...I guess you go ahead and knock yourself out. WELS has Baristas as Pastors.
Right, all the WELS theologians keep saying that Baristas are pastors. Yup that's what they are saying. Seems like booger picking bloggers are the ones saying that over and over again.
Sounds like the Berger guy is saying that there are people who are serving their Lord as representatives of their congregations. But go ahead and continue to claim he says that Baristas are pastors.
"Booger picking" see I can make myself laugh without your help.
"Jesus has also called some believers into public ministry. Public ministry is ministry on behalf of a group of believers. It includes pastors and teachers. It also includes Sunday School teachers, councilmen, board members, pioneer leaders, worship leaders, ushers, greeters, COFFE CAFE SERVERS and all the other ministry individuals do on behalf of Mount Olive or another group of believers (Emphasis added for those who would remain blind)."
"Right, all the WELS theologians keep saying that Baristas are pastors. Yup that's what they are saying. Seems like booger picking bloggers are the ones saying that over and over again."
Well, at least this 7 year old responds as well as the WELS theologians.
Since one do the words of one pastor represent the official doctrine of an entire synod? That's complete foolishness. If we applied the same rule to the LCMS, then the official doctrine of that synod is that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. But obviously no one would be so absurd as to claim that. Why doesn't the same common sense apply to the WELS? One pastor's foolish words don't represent the synod as a whole.
"One pastor's foolish words don't represent the synod as a whole."
This is the most revealing of all threads on this site, for not only are there the puerile comments, the straw men arguments, but the refusal to read, showing how pitiful the WELS defenders are.
No, Ms. Anonymous, there is more than one foolish man speaking for the WELS. How about the foolish comments in the OFFICIAL theological journal of the WELS and of its seminary, the Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly.
"What is most interesting is simply to notice the sizable and well organised PUBLIC MINISTRY which existed in Wittenberg, and the variety of different offices. It reminds me a little of the congregation I presently serve which has three pastors and twelve Christian day school teachers, plus secretaries and JANITORS, who are all ministering in some sense (Prof. Tom Nass, vol 91 p. 251)
Or this foolish man's words, the former president of the wels seminary, David Vallesky,
"Including staff ministry and member ministry, even that which supports rather than directly participates in word and sacrament ministry, under the term public ministry is biblical." The WELS Ministry Compendium p. 803.
Or these foolish words from current seminary professor John Brenner,
"We find no words of institution for any specific form of the PUBLIC MINISTRY. Rather already in apostolic times the public ministry was exercised in a variety of ways. The Christians in Jerusalem chose seven deacons to supervise charitable work in their name." (Issues in wels website paper)
Table servers and coffee servers IN THE PUBLIC MINISTRY.
But of course this is official wels doctrine which says the same thing when it includes this table service as a form of the PUBLIC MINISTRY (cf II. Ministry D. 6.) A lot of foolish men behind that one.
Oh, and for good ol' times' sake,
"Jesus has also called some believers into PUBLIC MINISTRY. Public ministry is ministry on behalf of a group of believers. It includes pastors and teachers. It also includes Sunday School teachers, councilmen, board members, pioneer leaders, worship leaders, ushers, greeters, COFFEE CAFE SERVERS and all the other ministry individuals do on behalf of Mount Olive or another group of believers."
Anyway, thank you for showing us all the favorite tactic of those who harden their hearts against the truth: Ignore the words and attack the messenger. I am pleased (too pleased, in fact.)
Did you notice how this anonymous keeps equating the "public ministry" with pastors (eg. you show how this WELS pastor called baristas public ministers and he says you are calling them pastors). Isn't that what the WELS calls the Missouri view?
Each of those quotes you provided included some sort of qualifier, all of which you conveniently disregarded. Sure, those papers say that public ministry "in some sense" could be thought to include janitors, et.al. But, when you read those quotes, in context, you see that the authors then immediately state that janitors, et. al., aren't in the public ministry in the true sense. If you were honest, you would quote those paragraphs as well.
It's as if I wrote: "One of the characteristics of animals is that they grow. Thus, in one sense, trees could be considered animals since they grow. BUT, there are other characteristics of animals which trees don't have, thus they aren't really animals."
You could quote the first half of that and mock me for saying that I thought trees were animals. But in context it's clear that I don't really think that.
It's the same with those quotes. They're simply saying that looking at one characteristic of public ministry, you could, in a sense, say that janitors were in it. BUT (and this is what you ignore) when you consider all the characteristics of the public ministry, janitors aren't in it.
Is it a bit unclear? Yup. Do I wish that WELS theologians would find a better way to express themselves? Yup. Is it false doctrine? Nope.
" There is, however, no direct word of institution for any particular form of the public ministry. The one public ministry of the Gospel may assume various forms, as circumstances demand. Ac 6:1-6. The specific forms in which Christians establish the public ministry have not been prescribed by the Lord to His New Testament Church. It is the Holy Spirit who through the gift of their common faith leads the believers to establish the adequate and wholesome forms which fit every circumstance, situation, and need. Various functions are mentioned in Scripture: 1 Ti 4:13; Eph 4:11; 1 Co 12:28; Ro 12:6-8; 2 Ti 2:2; Jn 21:15-17 (feeding); Ac 20:28 (watching); 1 Ti 3:2; 4:11; 6:2 (teaching); 1 Ti 3:5; 5:17 (ruling). In spite of the great diversity in the external forms of the ministerial work, the ministry is essentially one. The various offices for the public preaching of the Gospel, not only those enumerated above, e.g., in Eph 4:11 and 1 Co 12:28, but also those developed in our day, are all gifts of the exalted Christ to His Church which the Church receives gratefully and with due regard for love and order employs under the guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit for the upbuilding of the spiritual body of Christ; and all of them are comprehended under the general commission to preach the Gospel given to all believers."
No "in a sense" qualifiers here. And this isn't one pastor's opinion. It's WELS doctrine.
Sorry, kid, but that doesn't work. The wels "theologians" (sic) are perfectly clear here, you "conveniently" refuse to acknowledge what they are saying. The wels officially teaches that all these things (from preaching to scrubbing floors) done on behalf of the church are public ministry. The wels finds no separate institution of the Office of the Holy Ministry (as the Lutheran Church has always understood it to be) beyond "good order." The inclusion of the Acts 6 table service as PROOF of a different FORM of the PUBLIC MINISTRY is cystal clear and contradicts what you want the wels to believe. There are no qualifiers there (which you fail to show that I have conveniently ignored), even in that statement of Nass there is no qualifier. He says in some sense janitors are in the PUBLIC MININSTRY. You see, to maintain your parsing of Nass' words you would also have to say that "in some sense" pastors aren't in the public ministry. Deal with the words written not what you imagine them to mean. And this begs the question, in what sense, son, IS a janitor in the public ministry? What you wish Nass to say he doesn't say, nor do the wels official doctrinal statements. And furthermore, ask your wels theologians what are the qualifications for those serving in the PUBLIC MINISTRY, and you will invariably hear "1 Timothy 3:1-11, Titus 1:5-9" and then ask "how do these apply to janitors?" (Do you see how foolish this is?)
Odd, but true, in "defense" of the wels teaching you contradict wels teaching.
You pointed to 1 Timothy and Titus for the qualifications for the public ministry. Just one question. If those books contain the qualifications for the one, single, unified OHM in the person of the pastor (elder), then why in the world would Paul have to repeat those qualifications when it came to deacons? If there is only, one, single, unified OHM why then are there two listings of qualifications for two forms of public service in the church?
Oh, and by the way, you said, "The wels finds no separate institution of the Office of the Holy Ministry (as the Lutheran Church has always understood it to be) beyond "good order." That's utterly and completely false. This We Believe (the OFFICIAL WELS doctrinal document) says, "8. We believe that God has also established the public ministry of the Word (Ephesians 4:11)." Perhaps you ought to study what the WELS actually teaches before propagating your silly caricatures.
Why do you refuse to answer the questions put to you about Acts 6 and the table service which the WELS says is a form of the public ministry? I know why. You can't.
(Looks like my post didn't post, so once again...)
Wels-boy,
Wow, you guys are further off than I thought. The office of bishop (aka OHM) is THE Office of AC V, the only divinely established office. The deaconate in 1 Tim is not the office (show me the instituting word if you claim it is). Of course the wels views it that way because they call janitors etc. members of the public ministry, something you and your cohorts above are desperately trying to deny.
Read Ephesians 4:11. Where is the instituting word there? (Don't strain your brain looking for something that isn't there.) Where does the wels find an instituting word? Nowhere.
Yes, my position is the LCMS position which I have learned over the years most in the WELS don't understand.
I think most within the wels who know any history would say that the wels position changed with John Schaller. But I don't think the right wing wels conservatives know how much as evidenced by the discussion above. The fellow above should really read what the wels says about "public ministry." It is anything and everything done "on behalf of" the church. The preacher from Appleton who posits that church baristas are in the public ministry is not preaching contrary to the wels position as the fellow above suggested. I dare say A. Hoenecke is rolling over in his grave. Read Erling Teigen's article in Logia I:1 for a good analysis.
And once again Bailing Water has become nothing more than a propaganda site for the LCMS.
And once again we get the good ol' AC V is about pastors. You know, I might take the hyper-Missouri position a lot more seriously if they didn't keep resorting to AC V. It's laughably obvious that hyper-Missourians distort AC V to mean something that it very clearly doesn't mean in context.
Although, Dan did make a stretch I haven't heard before. Paul gives the qualifications for the office of elder (pastor) in 1 Timothy and then gives the qualifications for the office of deacon in 1 Timothy. Both are almost identical. And yet, somehow to Dan, one is talking about public ministry and one isn't. Somehow, to Dan, Paul mysteriously changes the topic from OHM to non-OHM without so much as a word to that effect, using the same words to describe both. Why does Dan say this? Not because the clear context says so, but because his pre-determined theological position says so. When one interprets the Bible like that, one is on very dangerous ground.
OK, that's it for me. I get sick of going around in circles here. You guys can keep talking about it if you want. (Though I'm not sure why LCMS members feel the need to come onto a WELS board and proselytize, but oh well.)
I wrote, "Yes, my position is the LCMS position which I have learned over the years most in the WELS don't understand."
Thank you for so quickly illustrating my point when you write, "And once again we get the good ol' AC V is about pastors." Now where did I say that? Well, nowhere, of course, but that is what you in your ignornance believe because blind men have taught you. Go through my posts, where do I say that?
It is obvious you do not understand the matter at all when you write, "It's laughably obvious that hyper-Missourians distort AC V to mean something that it very clearly doesn't mean in context."
Pray tell, how have I done that other than clearly showing that the Office of Preaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments is the office God has established and is the only divinely established office, which is precisely what AC V says. (I only continue this discussion with you to illustrative how wels people debate, charges and no proof, as well as childish insults.)
To date you have not answered any questions, especially these two: what is the instituting word for the OHM, what is the instituting word for the "form" of the mininstry for the deaconate. Wels, you presumably, use the Acts 6 table service as "proof" that there are different "forms" (sic) of the Public Ministry. Have you ever read that verses. Why did the apostles set aside men for this task? (Don't think to hard or your brain will explode.)
Incredibly you equate the office of bishop with that of deacon and write "Both are almost identical" and you amuse yourself by saying
"Somehow, to Dan, Paul mysteriously changes the topic from OHM to non-OHM without so much as a word to that effect, using the same words to describe both."
Same? Where is the deacon required to be able to teach and to rule the church? You say I say Paul "mysteriously" changes the topic - as if he didn't. How blind you are! He says, "Bishops" and then "deacons." How is that for a change? If they were the "same" and "almost identical" then why did he have to separate and in key respects different lists.
Incidently you write "Paul gives the qualifications for the office of elder (pastor) in 1 Timothy." I won't argue with you there, for the office of bishop is a pastoral office (though Paul calls them bishops here, not elders as you erroneously write.)
To quote one who doesn't know what he is talking about, you do this "Not because the clear context says so, but because [your] pre-determined theological position says so. When one interprets the Bible like that, one is on very dangerous ground."
Tell me again, where is the instituing word for the public ministry (I have asked this repeatedly and you offer no answer), tell me again, where is the instituting word for the"form" of the public ministry for the deaconate (I have asked this repeatedly and you offer no answer)? You simply assert this because this is the predetermined wels position.
So, according to you and the wels table servers, janitors baristas etc. are in the OHM. Sure sounds like AC V work to me.
And to avoid answering any of the above you write "going around in circles." Indeed, I ask questions show the wels errors and you insult and avoid answering the questions, over and over. Circles indeed.
You conclude, "Though I'm not sure why LCMS members feel the need to come onto a WELS board and proselytize".
First, didn't know this was a wels board, second, what are you afraid of, and finally your posts are very indicative of the cult-like mentality of all too many in the wels.
Now shall we talk about the role of women and how the wels says women may not be in authority over men in society, in the work place, in the military, in government.... That's always great fun.
Of course, Dan, because there is the fact that the woman is not in the same measure as the man skilled in instructing; adept at ruling, at punishing, at battling; prudent; interested in bare principle; consistent; unyielding; and truly pedagogical, even if by way of exception it can also be otherwise. God himself appointed the male species for the coarse, heavy, and great physical and intellectual work in the world and also in the church. The woman is not to be there as an equally important participant in the work of the world,
For the salutary management of the outward and inward affairs of the congregation one needs, besides love for Christ and His kingdom, above all calmness, prudence, capable judgment, objectivity. The love for Christ and His church among women is certainly not inferior to that among men; but calm discussion, a careful weighing of pros and cons, strict objectivity that is not disturbed by personal likes and dislikes are not a woman’s forte. If it is the case already with us men that our personal inclinations often cloud our judgment so that we have to exercise stern discipline if we want to judge objectively, then that is the case with woman to a still far greater degree. It is much harder for her to overcome likes and dislikes, and so she is more partial than man.
Augie and Will, It is so cool that you know how to cut and paste these quotes from Godly men of the WELS past. Now please provide your brilliant spin on how they are complete idiots. You know already that you are right, go ahead and show us.
The fact is that Christians searching the scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions disagree. Both have been accused of holding to a false interpretation, but neither have been convinced that their view is false.
"Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that one one should publicly teach in the Church or adminsiter the Sacraments or pour coffee and mop the floor unless he be regularly called."
Just when you think Bailing Water can't fall any lower, it does.
By the way John, you do realize of course that your latest question was horribly biased, right? "Is the historical (or now the LCMS) position on the OHM false doctrine?" So the built-in assumption is that the strict Missouri position is the historic position? That's a huge, huge assumption, one that's been proven wrong by better scholars than I. You should be a main-stream journalist with biased questions like those.
63 comments:
Everyone is a minister.
1] 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, 2] the Holy Ghost is given, who works faith; where and when it pleases God, in them that hear 3] the Gospel, to wit, that God, not for our own merits, but for Christ's sake, justifies those who believe that they are received into grace for Christ's sake.
4] They condemn the Anabaptists, Fuller Seminary, Willow Creek, Leonard Sweet, and others who think that the Holy Ghost comes to men without the external Word, through their own preparations and works.
Bespoke
Ok. I bit. I read it. This is what I learned: The ministry is formless and void. It is what we say it is.
Skippy
Is there a biblical passage that one can point to in this discussion? How about Ephesians 4:11-12? Doesn't "works of service" translate to "works of ministry" in the Greek?
Just shout'in
JS,
Get yourself out of the NIV. It's a bad translation.
Sorry, but the NIV contains a perfectly legitimate translation of Ephesians 4:12. Sure, you can wrangle and wrestle it to make "to do works of ministry" apply to "apostles, prophets..." and not the the "saints of God", but that's not the clear and simple translation. It's merely the wrangling and wrestling of those who are reading their predetermined viewpoint back into Scripture. That's a huge no-no when it comes to interpreting the Bible.
So, anonymous, get yourself into the Greek, then you won't have to worry about bad translations.
How about the Greek?
diakovias, noun, fem. sing. gen. the role or position of serving — ‘ministry, task.’ ‘that I may complete my course of life and my ministry which I received from the Lord’ (Acts 20:24) Louw & Nida
How about the KJV?
Eph. 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
How about the NRSV?
Eph. 4:12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,.
How about the NET?
Eph. 4:12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, that is, to build up the body of Christ.
Just shout'in
Anonymous,
Arguments can be made for both translations of Eph. 4:12. The real issue is, what do you hope to prove from it. Those who claim it is in reference to the saints use it for the deputization of the laity for the works of the Holy Ministry. Those who say it is in reference to the apostles etc. say it explains why Christ gave such to the church.
Those in favor of the former view are taking a giant leap in logic, however - even if that is the proper translation - when they assume this ministry or service is work of the office of the Holy Ministry and not the simple and blessed daily service of the laity in their life and vocation. That view finds itself out of synx with the rest of the Scriptures (thus AC XIV). That is the view that says "we are all ministers/pastors/bishops etc" and that the role of the pastor/minister/bishop is to make little pastors/ministers/bishops, which as one wit once said leads the sheep into strange pastures where they eat hallucinating grasses which make them think they are all pastors.
Dunkirk Dan
Dunkirk Dan,
No one is trying to use Ephesians 4:12 to say that the all the laity are in the OHM/public/representative ministry. That's a gross caricature of my position (and the WELS position). I believe that JS simply quoted that passage in the first place to demonstrate that the word "ministry" can and is used in reference to laity. That seems to be more than some here are even willing to admit.
I'm glad though that you admit that the word "ministry" has a broader spectrum of meanings than "OHM, and only OHM". Some hyper-Missourians, when they hear the word, insist it means, and can only mean, OHM. If people would simply realize that the word "ministry" has different definitions and has been used differently in different eras, much of this needless wrangling would evaporate.
JS,
Indeed, I do prefer the KJV. Your reading needs a little work. "Eph. 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" Note the comma between the first two sections. Those gifts, (those in the OHM) were given for those three reasons: perfecting of the saints, work of the ministry, edifying of the body of Christ.
And Anonymous @ 12:13,
Know thyself. The WELS puts everyone including janitors and VBS volunteers into the "public ministry". If you don't believe me, head on over to www.wels.net.
Dunkirk Dan,
What passage do you point to to support your position on ministry?
Just shout'in
"Know thyself. The WELS puts everyone including janitors and VBS volunteers into the "public ministry"."
Only if you purposely rip one sentence in one paper completely out of context and then conveniently ignore every other sentence of said paper so as to paint a wild caricature of the WELS' actual position.
If you want to seriously discuss these issues, you need to drop these caricatures and deal honestly with the actual WELS position.
DD,
I find it interesting that you answer a question of mine that I submitted but that has not been posted. I will answer your question.
A quick look at Scripture reveals that various forms of ministry existed in the New Testament churches. (1 Ti 3:2 and 8; 1 Tim 5:17; Eph 4:11; 1 Co 12:28; Ro 12:6-8,
etc.). Among the forms named are apostles, prophets, evangelists, elders/overseers, pastors and teachers (syntactically one role), and deacons. All of these men are specifically said to be serving in divinely established ministries (1 Co 12:28; Eph 4:11, 12).
There were also different forms of public ministry in the Old Testament. Priests were differentiated from Levites, and there were various forms of ministry among the Levites, not all of which involved direct use of the Old Testament means of grace.
Various forms of ministry have been recognized throughout church history, including the time of the Reformation. Luther states this very clearly in his "Sermon on Keeping Children in School": The estate that I am thinking of is rather one which has the office of preaching and the service of the word and sacrament and which imparts the Spirit and salvation, blessings that cannot be obtained by any amount of pomp and pageantry. It includes the work of pastors, teachers, preachers, lectors, priests (whom men call chaplains), sacristans, schoolmasters, and whatever other works belong to these offices and persons (LW 46, p 220).
In its widest and most basic sense the term "the ministry" refers to the gospel ministry or the ministry of the Word established by Christ and given to the whole church. (2 Cor. 3:7-9)
It would appear to be that the pastoral
ministry is not instituted in contrast to or to the exclusion of other forms of the ministry.
Just shout'in
Anonymous wrote,
"Some hyper-Missourians, when they hear the word, insist it means, and can only mean, OHM." There is not a single so called "hyper-Missourian" (whatever that is) who would insist that every occurance of the word diakonia in the NT has reference to the OHM. Please provide proof of that assertion if you don't agree and I will happily concede that point.
Unfortunately that misuse and over application of the word runs rampant in the WS as evidenced by the WS statements on the ministry (and you will find this is Prof. John Brenner's paper on the "Issues in WELS" site) that says that the Acts 6 table service is that of the Public Ministry.
Just shout'in,
John 20:20-23, Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16: 15-16, Romans 10:14-17 is the short list off the top of my head. (Acts 20:20, 1 Timothy 3 and Titus one also speak to the issue)
Dunkirk Dan
Just shout'in,
You write, "I find it interesting that you answer a question of mine that I submitted but that has not been posted. I will answer your question."
I have no idea what you are talking about.
What is all this blather about "forms"? That is a giant leap in welsian logic that because the incumbents of the Office of the Holy Ministry in Scripture are called various things that that somehow constitutes different "forms." The pastor of our church is called pastor, minister, clergyman, father, reverend, teacher and a few things I can't mention in polite society. But there is one office, the office of preaching the Gospel and administrating the Sacraments, an authoritative office in the congregation to bind and loose sins, an office that is fenced by 1 Timothy 3:1-11, Titus 1:5-9, 1 Timothy 2:11-14 and 1 Cor. 14 34ff and which has no ranks. The oft quoted quote from Luther needs the context that these were all duties and positions filled by and performed by the ordained. One wonders why the WELS never quotes Luther when he excludes women from the Ministry. As for confusion about terms, I always laugh when the WELS stomps its foot and says "we don't have women pastors." Yes you do, for that is simply one title of many that can be given to any within the Office.
Your also write "In its widest and most basic sense the term "the ministry" refers to the gospel ministry or the ministry of the Word established by Christ and given to the whole church. (2 Cor. 3:7-9)"
Read the context. Yes, this "ministry" was given to the church, but not every one is in it as you suggest (correct me if I am wrong). The preceding verses (as the whole letter) tell us Paul is speaking about himself and those who serve in the ministry (see v. 1 and also 6:1). In this context the "we's" refer to Paul and those ritely called and the "you's" to the Corinthians.
You asked me (and I answered) "What passage do you point to to support your position on ministry?" And you?
Dunkirk Dan
Anonymous writes,
"Only if you purposely rip one sentence in one paper completely out of context and then conveniently ignore every other sentence of said paper so as to paint a wild caricature of the WELS' actual position. If you want to seriously discuss these issues, you need to drop these caricatures and deal honestly with the actual WELS position."
A. That was not "ripped out of context." And it was in the Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, the OFFICIAL journal of the WELS.
B. This view is found throughout the WELs, example, from a sermon by Ben Berger, WELS, Mt. Olive, Appleton,
"Jesus has also called some believers into public ministry. Public ministry is ministry on behalf of a group of believers. It includes pastors and teachers. It also includes Sunday School teachers, councilmen, board members, pioneer leaders, worship leaders, ushers, greeters, coffee café servers and all the other ministry individuals do on behalf of Mount Olive or another group of believers."
Would you like whip on that mocha latte soy frappachino?
Ken in Kekoskee
Barista, a form of the Office of the Holy Ministry?! Yikes.
Some anonymous wrote,
"If you want to seriously discuss these issues, you need to drop these caricatures and deal honestly with the actual WELS position."
Ok. Now that the WELS position (eg. baristas, janitors etc. are in the Office of the Holy Ministry) exposed above has been shown not to be a caricature, are you will to honestly deal with it? The last day's silence from you suggests you aren't. Correct me if I am wrong.
Dunkirk Dan
Dunkirk Dan,
Baristas in the office would leave anyone speechless.
Ken in Kekoskee
Yet as it stands. You would be the only one insisting that "Baristas" are pastors. Soooo...I guess you go ahead and knock yourself out. WELS has Baristas as Pastors.
"WELS has Baristas as Pastors."
No, wels says baristas are in the office of the Holy Ministry, of course, if they meet the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3:1-11,
"A barista must be blameless, the husband of one wife, able to serve piping hot drinks...."
Keep saying it and it will be true...if only in your own mind
Or in the minds of all the wels "theologians" who keep saying it.
Right, all the WELS theologians keep saying that Baristas are pastors. Yup that's what they are saying. Seems like booger picking bloggers are the ones saying that over and over again.
Sounds like the Berger guy is saying that there are people who are serving their Lord as representatives of their congregations. But go ahead and continue to claim he says that Baristas are pastors.
"Booger picking" see I can make myself laugh without your help.
"Jesus has also called some believers into public ministry. Public ministry is ministry on behalf of a group of believers. It includes pastors and teachers. It also includes Sunday School teachers, councilmen, board members, pioneer leaders, worship leaders, ushers, greeters, COFFE CAFE SERVERS and all the other ministry individuals do on behalf of Mount Olive or another group of believers (Emphasis added for those who would remain blind)."
"Right, all the WELS theologians keep saying that Baristas are pastors. Yup that's what they are saying. Seems like booger picking bloggers are the ones saying that over and over again."
Well, at least this 7 year old responds as well as the WELS theologians.
Dunkirk Dan
Since one do the words of one pastor represent the official doctrine of an entire synod? That's complete foolishness. If we applied the same rule to the LCMS, then the official doctrine of that synod is that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. But obviously no one would be so absurd as to claim that. Why doesn't the same common sense apply to the WELS? One pastor's foolish words don't represent the synod as a whole.
Dumkirk,
You better stop before that finger hits your brain... or maybe it's too late already.
Call up the Berger King guy and ask him if Baristas are pastors.
But then you couldn't keep saying it could you.
Anonymous,
"One pastor's foolish words don't represent the synod as a whole."
This is the most revealing of all threads on this site, for not only are there the puerile comments, the straw men arguments, but the refusal to read, showing how pitiful the WELS defenders are.
No, Ms. Anonymous, there is more than one foolish man speaking for the WELS. How about the foolish comments in the OFFICIAL theological journal of the WELS and of its seminary, the Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly.
"What is most interesting is simply to notice the sizable and well organised PUBLIC MINISTRY which existed in Wittenberg, and the variety of different offices. It reminds me a little of the congregation I presently serve which has three pastors and twelve Christian day school teachers, plus secretaries and JANITORS, who are all ministering in some sense (Prof. Tom Nass, vol 91 p. 251)
Or this foolish man's words, the former president of the wels seminary, David Vallesky,
"Including staff ministry and member ministry, even that which supports rather than directly participates in word and sacrament ministry, under the term public ministry is biblical." The WELS Ministry Compendium p. 803.
Or these foolish words from current seminary professor John Brenner,
"We find no words of institution for any specific form of the PUBLIC MINISTRY. Rather already in apostolic times the public ministry was exercised in a variety of ways. The Christians in Jerusalem chose seven deacons to supervise charitable work in their name." (Issues in wels website paper)
Table servers and coffee servers IN THE PUBLIC MINISTRY.
But of course this is official wels doctrine which says the same thing when it includes this table service as a form of the PUBLIC MINISTRY (cf II. Ministry D. 6.) A lot of foolish men behind that one.
Oh, and for good ol' times' sake,
"Jesus has also called some believers into PUBLIC MINISTRY. Public ministry is ministry on behalf of a group of believers. It includes pastors and teachers. It also includes Sunday School teachers, councilmen, board members, pioneer leaders, worship leaders, ushers, greeters, COFFEE CAFE SERVERS and all the other ministry individuals do on behalf of Mount Olive or another group of believers."
Anyway, thank you for showing us all the favorite tactic of those who harden their hearts against the truth: Ignore the words and attack the messenger. I am pleased (too pleased, in fact.)
Never have so many owed so much to....
Dunkirk Dan
Dunkirk Dan,
Did you notice how this anonymous keeps equating the "public ministry" with pastors (eg. you show how this WELS pastor called baristas public ministers and he says you are calling them pastors). Isn't that what the WELS calls the Missouri view?
Ken in Kekoskee
Kenneth,
Spot on.
Dunkirk Dan
"Seems like booger picking bloggers are the ones saying that over and over again."
Your parents must be real proud!
Hahahah....haha...ha
This guy cracks me up.
Sorry if I don't get it, but why are you people calling Baristers 'public Ministers'?
Confused
Dan,
Each of those quotes you provided included some sort of qualifier, all of which you conveniently disregarded. Sure, those papers say that public ministry "in some sense" could be thought to include janitors, et.al. But, when you read those quotes, in context, you see that the authors then immediately state that janitors, et. al., aren't in the public ministry in the true sense. If you were honest, you would quote those paragraphs as well.
It's as if I wrote: "One of the characteristics of animals is that they grow. Thus, in one sense, trees could be considered animals since they grow. BUT, there are other characteristics of animals which trees don't have, thus they aren't really animals."
You could quote the first half of that and mock me for saying that I thought trees were animals. But in context it's clear that I don't really think that.
It's the same with those quotes. They're simply saying that looking at one characteristic of public ministry, you could, in a sense, say that janitors were in it. BUT (and this is what you ignore) when you consider all the characteristics of the public ministry, janitors aren't in it.
Is it a bit unclear? Yup. Do I wish that WELS theologians would find a better way to express themselves? Yup. Is it false doctrine? Nope.
" There is, however, no direct word of institution for any particular form of the public ministry. The one public ministry of the Gospel may assume various forms, as circumstances demand. Ac 6:1-6. The specific forms in which Christians establish the public ministry have not been prescribed by the Lord to His New Testament Church. It is the Holy Spirit who through the gift of their common faith leads the believers to establish the adequate and wholesome forms which fit every circumstance, situation, and need. Various functions are mentioned in Scripture: 1 Ti 4:13; Eph 4:11; 1 Co 12:28; Ro 12:6-8; 2 Ti 2:2; Jn 21:15-17 (feeding); Ac 20:28 (watching); 1 Ti 3:2; 4:11; 6:2 (teaching); 1 Ti 3:5; 5:17 (ruling). In spite of the great diversity in the external forms of the ministerial work, the ministry is essentially one. The various offices for the public preaching of the Gospel, not only those enumerated above, e.g., in Eph 4:11 and 1 Co 12:28, but also those developed in our day, are all gifts of the exalted Christ to His Church which the Church receives gratefully and with due regard for love and order employs under
the guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit for the upbuilding of the spiritual body of Christ; and all of them are comprehended under the general commission to preach the Gospel given to all believers."
No "in a sense" qualifiers here. And this isn't one pastor's opinion. It's WELS doctrine.
Sorry, kid, but that doesn't work. The wels "theologians" (sic) are perfectly clear here, you "conveniently" refuse to acknowledge what they are saying. The wels officially teaches that all these things (from preaching to scrubbing floors) done on behalf of the church are public ministry. The wels finds no separate institution of the Office of the Holy Ministry (as the Lutheran Church has always understood it to be) beyond "good order." The inclusion of the Acts 6 table service as PROOF of a different FORM of the PUBLIC MINISTRY is cystal clear and contradicts what you want the wels to believe. There are no qualifiers there (which you fail to show that I have conveniently ignored), even in that statement of Nass there is no qualifier. He says in some sense janitors are in the PUBLIC MININSTRY. You see, to maintain your parsing of Nass' words you would also have to say that "in some sense" pastors aren't in the public ministry. Deal with the words written not what you imagine them to mean. And this begs the question, in what sense, son, IS a janitor in the public ministry? What you wish Nass to say he doesn't say, nor do the wels official doctrinal statements. And furthermore, ask your wels theologians what are the qualifications for those serving in the PUBLIC MINISTRY, and you will invariably hear "1 Timothy 3:1-11, Titus 1:5-9" and then ask "how do these apply to janitors?" (Do you see how foolish this is?)
Odd, but true, in "defense" of the wels teaching you contradict wels teaching.
As ever,
Dunkirk Dan
Dan,
You pointed to 1 Timothy and Titus for the qualifications for the public ministry. Just one question. If those books contain the qualifications for the one, single, unified OHM in the person of the pastor (elder), then why in the world would Paul have to repeat those qualifications when it came to deacons? If there is only, one, single, unified OHM why then are there two listings of qualifications for two forms of public service in the church?
Oh, and by the way, you said, "The wels finds no separate institution of the Office of the Holy Ministry (as the Lutheran Church has always understood it to be) beyond "good order." That's utterly and completely false. This We Believe (the OFFICIAL WELS doctrinal document) says, "8. We believe that God has also established the public ministry of the Word (Ephesians 4:11)." Perhaps you ought to study what the WELS actually teaches before propagating your silly caricatures.
Anonymous,
Why do you refuse to answer the questions put to you about Acts 6 and the table service which the WELS says is a form of the public ministry? I know why. You can't.
Ken in Kekoskee
(Looks like my post didn't post, so once again...)
Wels-boy,
Wow, you guys are further off than I thought. The office of bishop (aka OHM) is THE Office of AC V, the only divinely established office. The deaconate in 1 Tim is not the office (show me the instituting word if you claim it is). Of course the wels views it that way because they call janitors etc. members of the public ministry, something you and your cohorts above are desperately trying to deny.
Read Ephesians 4:11. Where is the instituting word there? (Don't strain your brain looking for something that isn't there.) Where does the wels find an instituting word? Nowhere.
Dunkirk Dan
Double D:
You position sounds awfully like the LC-MS position or in your understanding has the WELS historical position on ministry changed?
The mequon lurker
Mequon Lurker,
Yes, my position is the LCMS position which I have learned over the years most in the WELS don't understand.
I think most within the wels who know any history would say that the wels position changed with John Schaller. But I don't think the right wing wels conservatives know how much as evidenced by the discussion above. The fellow above should really read what the wels says about "public ministry." It is anything and everything done "on behalf of" the church. The preacher from Appleton who posits that church baristas are in the public ministry is not preaching contrary to the wels position as the fellow above suggested. I dare say A. Hoenecke is rolling over in his grave. Read Erling Teigen's article in Logia I:1 for a good analysis.
Dunkirk Dan
And once again Bailing Water has become nothing more than a propaganda site for the LCMS.
And once again we get the good ol' AC V is about pastors. You know, I might take the hyper-Missouri position a lot more seriously if they didn't keep resorting to AC V. It's laughably obvious that hyper-Missourians distort AC V to mean something that it very clearly doesn't mean in context.
Although, Dan did make a stretch I haven't heard before. Paul gives the qualifications for the office of elder (pastor) in 1 Timothy and then gives the qualifications for the office of deacon in 1 Timothy. Both are almost identical. And yet, somehow to Dan, one is talking about public ministry and one isn't. Somehow, to Dan, Paul mysteriously changes the topic from OHM to non-OHM without so much as a word to that effect, using the same words to describe both. Why does Dan say this? Not because the clear context says so, but because his pre-determined theological position says so. When one interprets the Bible like that, one is on very dangerous ground.
OK, that's it for me. I get sick of going around in circles here. You guys can keep talking about it if you want. (Though I'm not sure why LCMS members feel the need to come onto a WELS board and proselytize, but oh well.)
Anonymous,
I wrote, "Yes, my position is the LCMS position which I have learned over the years most in the WELS don't understand."
Thank you for so quickly illustrating my point when you write, "And once again we get the good ol' AC V is about pastors." Now where did I say that? Well, nowhere, of course, but that is what you in your ignornance believe because blind men have taught you. Go through my posts, where do I say that?
It is obvious you do not understand the matter at all when you write, "It's laughably obvious that hyper-Missourians distort AC V to mean something that it very clearly doesn't mean in context."
Pray tell, how have I done that other than clearly showing that the Office of Preaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments is the office God has established and is the only divinely established office, which is precisely what AC V says. (I only continue this discussion with you to illustrative how wels people debate, charges and no proof, as well as childish insults.)
To date you have not answered any questions, especially these two: what is the instituting word for the OHM, what is the instituting word for the "form" of the mininstry for the deaconate. Wels, you presumably, use the Acts 6 table service as "proof" that there are different "forms" (sic) of the Public Ministry. Have you ever read that verses. Why did the apostles set aside men for this task? (Don't think to hard or your brain will explode.)
Incredibly you equate the office of bishop with that of deacon and write "Both are almost identical" and you amuse yourself by saying
"Somehow, to Dan, Paul mysteriously changes the topic from OHM to non-OHM without so much as a word to that effect, using the same words to describe both."
Same? Where is the deacon required to be able to teach and to rule the church? You say I say Paul "mysteriously" changes the topic - as if he didn't. How blind you are! He says, "Bishops" and then "deacons." How is that for a change? If they were the "same" and "almost identical" then why did he have to separate and in key respects different lists.
Incidently you write "Paul gives the qualifications for the office of elder (pastor) in 1 Timothy." I won't argue with you there, for the office of bishop is a pastoral office (though Paul calls them bishops here, not elders as you erroneously write.)
To quote one who doesn't know what he is talking about, you do this "Not because the clear context says so, but because [your] pre-determined theological position says so. When one interprets the Bible like that, one is on very dangerous ground."
Tell me again, where is the instituing word for the public ministry (I have asked this repeatedly and you offer no answer), tell me again, where is the instituting word for the"form" of the public ministry for the deaconate (I have asked this repeatedly and you offer no answer)? You simply assert this because this is the predetermined wels position.
So, according to you and the wels table servers, janitors baristas etc. are in the OHM. Sure sounds like AC V work to me.
And to avoid answering any of the above you write "going around in circles." Indeed, I ask questions show the wels errors and you insult and avoid answering the questions, over and over. Circles indeed.
You conclude, "Though I'm not sure why LCMS members feel the need to come onto a WELS board and proselytize".
First, didn't know this was a wels board, second, what are you afraid of, and finally your posts are very indicative of the cult-like mentality of all too many in the wels.
Now shall we talk about the role of women and how the wels says women may not be in authority over men in society, in the work place, in the military, in government.... That's always great fun.
Dunkirk Dan
Of course, Dan, because there is the fact that the woman is not in the same measure as the man skilled in instructing; adept at ruling, at punishing, at battling; prudent; interested in bare principle; consistent; unyielding; and truly pedagogical, even if by way of exception it can also be otherwise. God himself appointed the male species for the coarse, heavy, and great physical and intellectual work in the world and also in the church. The woman is not to be there as an equally important participant in the work of the world,
Augie
For the salutary management of the outward and inward affairs of the congregation one needs, besides love for Christ and His kingdom, above all calmness, prudence, capable judgment, objectivity. The love for Christ and His church among women is certainly not inferior to that among men; but calm discussion, a careful weighing of pros and cons, strict objectivity that is not disturbed by personal likes and dislikes are not a woman’s forte. If it is the case already with us men that our personal inclinations often cloud our judgment so that we have to exercise stern discipline if we want to judge objectively, then that is the case with woman to a still far greater degree. It is much harder for her to overcome likes and dislikes, and so she is more partial than man.
Will
As far as I can tell Dan, you keep making claims that others refute, after which you say- "you haven't answered my question you wells homer"
You are right in your own mind and no one will convince you otherwise. What is the point of "conversing" with someone like that.
But by all means fire away.
Still confused (By Dan)
Hmmm, Augie and Will, I think you guys are destined for great things in the Wisconsin Synod and beyond! (Maybe you could give a lecture on this.)
Dunkirk Dan
Augie and Will,
It is so cool that you know how to cut and paste these quotes from Godly men of the WELS past. Now please provide your brilliant spin on how they are complete idiots. You know already that you are right, go ahead and show us.
Tired of your act.
Here is a question for both sides of this discussion.
Is the current WELS position on ministry false doctrine?
Is the historical (or now the LCMS) position on the OHM false doctrine?
The fact is that Christians searching the scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions disagree. Both have been accused of holding to a false interpretation, but neither have been convinced that their view is false.
This blog is a cesspool of anger, pent up resentment, name calling, and circular arguments.
"Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that one one should publicly teach in the Church or adminsiter the Sacraments or pour coffee and mop the floor unless he be regularly called."
Anonymous at 11:07,
Watch your language, bub! We stand by what we wrote! Don't you agree? Goodness, we've been saying these for decades.
Augie & Will
Sung to the tune "We all live in a Yellow Sumbarine".
We're all in the Holy Ministry, the Holy Ministry, the Holy Ministry!
And our friends are all on board
many more of them live next door
and the praise band begins to play:
We're all in the Holy Ministry, the Holy Ministry, the Holy Ministry!
People, give peace a chance!
John and Yoko
Hard to take anyone or anything here seriously. I don't know which is more harmful the arrogance or the ignorance. Let the reader decide
Ignorance, definitely.
Just when you think Bailing Water can't fall any lower, it does.
By the way John, you do realize of course that your latest question was horribly biased, right? "Is the historical (or now the LCMS) position on the OHM false doctrine?" So the built-in assumption is that the strict Missouri position is the historic position? That's a huge, huge assumption, one that's been proven wrong by better scholars than I. You should be a main-stream journalist with biased questions like those.
No, actually John's right. The Wauwautosa 3 departed from historic Lutheran theology.
Wow- somebody told me to come and take a look at this blog. Entertaining but hardly Edifying. Easy to post under anonymity.
Like me- anon.
"This blog is a cesspool of anger, pent up resentment, name calling, and circular arguments."
Then why don't you just shut up?
Until you have read the Bible, the Lutheran Confessions, and the Wauwautosa Theology, sit on your hands.
"Then why don't you just shut up?"
Stay Classy Bailing Water
Post a Comment