tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post3214369174397625278..comments2023-04-26T04:36:47.052-05:00Comments on Bailing Water: Role of Men and WomenUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-68759121445205622462007-09-21T13:37:00.000-05:002007-09-21T13:37:00.000-05:00"Really??? C'mon. Ya think they let the inmates ru..."Really??? C'mon. Ya think they let the inmates run the asylum up in Mequon?"<BR/><BR/>I won't even address the ridiculous, outrageous, and offensive comparison between our dedicated theological students and mentally-challenged people. But I will point out that the one time I visited the seminary, students were staffing the library. Are they the ones who also post essays? It's possible.<BR/><BR/>"So....Brug is the norm for doctrine. Bartling is not. Got it."<BR/><BR/>Did you even read what I wrote? I said that we should determine WELS official doctrine based on the official WELS doctrinal statements (which are discussed in a paper by Brug). I didn't say that his papers themselves determine official doctrine. <BR/><BR/>Pay attention.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-28866630410237897962007-09-21T12:38:00.000-05:002007-09-21T12:38:00.000-05:00"For all we know some random seminary student coul..."For all we know some random seminary student could have put it up."<BR/><BR/>Really??? C'mon. Ya think they let the inmates run the asylum up in Mequon?<BR/><BR/><BR/>"I don't think that the essays on the seminary site are to be considered official doctrinal statements. In fact, one of Dr. Brug's papers deals with the official WELS statement on this matter. Perhaps that's a better place to deduce the official WELS position."<BR/><BR/>So....Brug is the norm for doctrine. Bartling is not. Got it.<BR/><BR/>Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-18335372110406721242007-09-21T09:13:00.000-05:002007-09-21T09:13:00.000-05:00"Your post makes the point I stated before. That t..."Your post makes the point I stated before. That there are 2 views of the OHM and the WELS accepts both. <BR/><BR/>If the WELS were to believe that Pr. Bartling's paper is wrong I don't think that his paper would be on the seminary site."<BR/><BR/>I'm not so sure we can go that far. I doubt that either of us knows what the process is for things to be posted on the seminary site. For all we know some random seminary student could have put it up. I don't think that the essays on the seminary site are to be considered official doctrinal statements. In fact, one of Dr. Brug's papers deals with the official WELS statement on this matter. Perhaps that's a better place to deduce the official WELS position.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-1243854545721660422007-09-21T08:42:00.000-05:002007-09-21T08:42:00.000-05:00Anonymous,Your post makes the point I stated befor...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>Your post makes the point I stated before. That there are 2 views of the OHM and the WELS accepts both. <BR/><BR/>If the WELS were to believe that Pr. Bartling's paper is wrong I don't think that his paper would be on the seminary site.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16191023241749592154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-84474400012400256392007-09-21T07:21:00.000-05:002007-09-21T07:21:00.000-05:00John,That paper by Bartling makes the same assumpt...John,<BR/><BR/>That paper by Bartling makes the same assumptions explained by anonymous above. If you look at his footnotes, you'll see he got his stuff in the same places as Logia and MM.<BR/><BR/>In contrast I suggest you look at several papers by Dr. Brug at the same site:<BR/><BR/>http://www.wlsessays.net/authors/B/bindex.html <BR/><BR/>They are entitled:<BR/><BR/>Current Debate Concerning the Doctrine of the Ministry<BR/><BR/>Doctrinal Brief: "Forms Of Ministry"<BR/><BR/>The Meaning of Predigtamt in Augsburg Confession V<BR/><BR/>The Ministry: By Christ through the Church - Current Discussion concerning the Doctrine of the Ministry<BR/><BR/>The Ministry of the Apostles and Our Ministry<BR/><BR/>The Priesthood of all Believers and the Ministry<BR/><BR/>Those papers should give you a pretty thorough explanation of the WELS position.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-62977937920826994802007-09-21T00:36:00.000-05:002007-09-21T00:36:00.000-05:00I found a WELS scholarly article that I would like...I found a WELS scholarly article that I would like to point you to that deals with the very focus of this discussion. I don’t know what synod LM belongs to but he has stood on a very valid point that the position of the WELS and the OHM has shifted. Here is the scholarly article from the WELS seminary library by Pr. M. Bartling. <BR/><BR/>http://www.wlsessays.net/authors/B/bindex.html <BR/><BR/>entitled: A Study Of Article V Of The Unaltered Augsburg Confession, 1530<BR/><BR/>Here is a quote from the WELS pastor page 5:<BR/><BR/>“Article V teaches that the Gospel and the Sacraments are to be administered through the preaching office that God instituted. <BR/>… Article V, therefore, teaches that the ministry is both a function and an office. It is an office instituted by God for the purpose or function of "teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments."<BR/> Luther in his "Confession Concerning Christ's Supper, 1528," states: All those who are found in the pastoral office or ministry of the Word, are in a holy, true, good, God-pleasing order and estate, since in it they preach and administer the sacraments, oversee the treasury, the sextons, and messengers or servants. This is nothing else than a holy work before God. 20”<BR/><BR/>The WELS pastor goes on to say:<BR/><BR/>“God has ordained or instituted a specific office in His church. This office we call today the pastoral office of Word and Sacrament.”<BR/><BR/>Again this is from the WLS online library. I would suggest that mr. anonymous read this and then refute this position.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16191023241749592154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-70642564240005926802007-09-21T00:08:00.000-05:002007-09-21T00:08:00.000-05:00“There are several problems with this.”Thanks for ...“There are several problems with this.”<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the detailed response. <BR/><BR/>A few points though:<BR/><BR/>“…the hyper-Missourians have a flawed interpretation of AC V and other parts of the Confessions. I know there have been several scholarly WELS papers on this very issue.”<BR/><BR/>To begin with, I’m not sure what you mean by “hyper-Missourian.” I’ve never been a Missourian, hyper or otherwise. Since you are aware of several scholarly papers on the topic, I won’t ask you anymore about this other than, can you point me towards those articles?<BR/><BR/>“Second, this position leads inevitably to Romanism.”<BR/><BR/>Again, I’m not sure that I follow you here. Maybe some of those articles you recommend will help. But along the same lines, it seems that WELS position will inevitably lead to everyone (man and woman) being in the ministry. Do you have reason to believe this is not the case (or at least, that there is nothing wrong with this)? <BR/><BR/>“Third, (related to point 1), there is limited Scriptural support for this position.”<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure if the articles I've referred to represent the “hyper-Missourian” view, but I found them well supported. Moreover, this criticism just begs the question. Is there more Scriptural support for the WELS position? <BR/><BR/>“This position is explained much more fully in WELS scholarly writing, so I won't discuss them here. “<BR/><BR/>That’s fine, but can you point me to these articles then? <BR/><BR/>LMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-57711954907353281852007-09-20T23:26:00.000-05:002007-09-20T23:26:00.000-05:00“First, I've directly asked you several questions ...“First, I've directly asked you several questions on this blog that you haven't answered either. So let's not pretend that you're addressing all of these issues head-on while everyone else is dancing around them.”<BR/><BR/>A couple of points on this: I asked my questions first. My questions were pretty specific. Some of your questions (if you are the anonymous I think you are) were either irrelevant or unclear. As for those that were relevant, either I did answer them or I felt that others adequately answered them for me. <BR/><BR/>“It's also obvious that you aren't open to the WELS viewpoint or in discussing what they have to say.”<BR/><BR/>I disagree. That is not obvious because it is not true. I am a member of a congregation that is a member of the WELS. I have attended WELS schools. Many of my best friends are either Clergy or lay persons in the WELS. I am very interested in the WELS viewpoint, but I’m more interested in how the WELS supports it view point. <BR/><BR/>“If the WELS teaching and the WELS papers and the WELS scholars aren't good enough for you, fine.”<BR/><BR/>I never said they weren’t good enough for me. I just haven’t seen anything convincing (scripturally and confessionally). I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, I’m just saying I haven’t seen or heard it yet. If you can recommend something, please do. <BR/><BR/>“Perhaps you should move on (back) to LutherQuest. This blog is meant for discussing issues within the WELS, not for proselytizing WELS members over to your side.”<BR/><BR/>Since when is exploring a Christological view of the Ministry “proselytizing WELS members over to my side?” I wouldn’t call it “my side” either. Don’t you think saying Women Lectors and Communion assistants are OK is an issue in to some in the WELS? In fact, that is how this all got started. And why would you imply that I am a regular on Lutherquest?<BR/><BR/>I do appreciate the response. <BR/><BR/>LMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-43668714235525609192007-09-20T22:27:00.000-05:002007-09-20T22:27:00.000-05:00LM,Here's the problem as I see it.The hyper-Missou...LM,<BR/><BR/>Here's the problem as I see it.<BR/><BR/>The hyper-Missouri view makes two basic assumptions.<BR/><BR/>First, they directly link Christ with the Office of the Ministry.<BR/><BR/>Second, they directly link the Office of the Ministry with the pastoral office.<BR/><BR/>There are several problems with this.<BR/><BR/>First, the hyper-Missouri position is based primarily in the Confessions rather than Scripture. That isn't necessarily a problem, except for the fact that the hyper-Missourians have a flawed interpretation of AC V and other parts of the Confessions. I know there have been several scholarly WELS papers on this very issue.<BR/><BR/>Second, this position leads inevitably to Romanism. If Christ=OHM=pastors, then Christ's power and authority inevitably become the possession of pastors instead of the Church. This leads to things like that Logia article in which the efficacy of the Word and Sacraments are based on the pastoral office.<BR/><BR/>Third, (related to point 1), there is limited Scriptural support for this position. Virtually all passages quoted by hyper-Missourians are Christ's words to the apostles. They interpret these words to the apostles to be words to pastors instead of words to the Church in general. This is due to the assumption that the pastorate is a direct "descendant" of the apostolic office. They seem to ignore the diversity of ministerial offices in the NT: apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, deacons, deaconesses, etc... One wouldn't expect such a diversity if there was one and only one specific office established by Christ. <BR/><BR/>In contrast, the WELS position makes these assumptions:<BR/><BR/>First, they directly link Christ with the Church.<BR/><BR/>Second, they directly link the Office of the Ministry with the public proclamation of the gospel.<BR/><BR/>This position is explained much more fully in WELS scholarly writing, so I won't discuss them here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-12261223516534522522007-09-20T22:02:00.000-05:002007-09-20T22:02:00.000-05:00LM,Two things:First, I've directly asked you sever...LM,<BR/><BR/>Two things:<BR/><BR/>First, I've directly asked you several questions on this blog that you haven't answered either. So let's not pretend that you're addressing all of these issues head-on while everyone else is dancing around them.<BR/><BR/>Second, I'm not sure exactly what you want to hear. You obviously have one view and the WELS obviously has another. It's also obvious that you aren't open to the WELS viewpoint or in discussing what they have to say. You only want to talk on your "home turf," if you will. (i.e. You're only willing to discuss these issues as you have framed the questions. See my first point above.) If the WELS teaching and the WELS papers and the WELS scholars aren't good enough for you, fine. Perhaps you should move on (back) to LutherQuest. This blog is meant for discussing issues within the WELS, not for proselytizing WELS members over to your side.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-55645091669008287032007-09-20T21:40:00.000-05:002007-09-20T21:40:00.000-05:00Jack Paar said:"Don't know (and frankly don't care...Jack Paar said:<BR/><BR/>"Don't know (and frankly don't care) who you are LM but I can guarantee that far more respected and brilliant men (both clergy and "simple laymen") standing on scripture have disagreed with you."<BR/><BR/>Great! That is what I've been asking for all along. But so far, all I have received are insults to my intelligence/reputation/honesty/ethics, a mouth full of words I never said, and a couple of accusatory/ conclusory statements followed by, "need i say more?" or its equivalent. <BR/><BR/>Is it too much to ask for someone to address these issues on their merits or support what they say? As those in my profession are fond of saying, “Let the record reflect…” that, well, yes, apparently it is too much to ask. <BR/><BR/>Sorry for taking up so much space on your blog John. I hope you keep it going. <BR/><BR/>LM<BR/><BR/>(Any relation to THE Jack Paar? He was a classy guy.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-76091657908598209742007-09-20T20:55:00.000-05:002007-09-20T20:55:00.000-05:00Could you please suggest an author or article. I'...Could you please suggest an author or article. I'm sure Kelm and Parlow won't be on the list.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16191023241749592154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-33228049361109824582007-09-20T20:46:00.000-05:002007-09-20T20:46:00.000-05:00You keep quoting Motley Magpie, wasnt that written...You keep quoting Motley Magpie, wasnt that written by 2 FORMER WELS pastors, and 1 almost former WELLS pastor? someone also quoted Rolf Preus, isnt he a former ELS pastor? not sure these are the guys to be quoting about doctrinal issues.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-25593613545258498132007-09-20T18:57:00.000-05:002007-09-20T18:57:00.000-05:00"With all due respect, based on what I’ve seen fro..."With all due respect, based on what I’ve seen from you thus far, he is a little more credible on this matter." If that isn't clear, please allow me to restate it again, in different words: When Luther says something, and an anonymous person on a blog disagrees, I am more inclined to side with Luther until that anonymous person explains where Luther was wrong."- LM<BR/><BR/>I guess one could say the same about "our scholars" in comparison to a semi-anon LM who can't seem to figure out that this isn't Loserquest. <BR/><BR/>Don't know (and frankly don't care) who you are LM but I can guarantee that far more respected and brilliant men (both clergy and "simple laymen") standing on scripture have disagreed with you.<BR/><BR/>I don't have a dog in this fight, and I don't like to do a drive by like this but sometimes I must. <BR/><BR/>Jack PaarAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01075779646576363814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-33465499373050647432007-09-20T18:22:00.000-05:002007-09-20T18:22:00.000-05:00"Wait, Luther was infallible?"Please show me where..."Wait, Luther was infallible?"<BR/><BR/>Please show me where I said Luther was infallible. See, what I really said was, "With all due respect, based on what I’ve seen from you thus far, he is a little more credible on this matter." If that isn't clear, please allow me to restate it again, in different words: When Luther says something, and an anonymous person on a blog disagrees, I am more inclined to side with Luther until that anonymous person explains where Luther was wrong. So, where has Luther been wrong? A numbered list with corresponding citations would probably be the most reader friendly format, but I'll accept your response in paragraph form as well. <BR/><BR/>Now, as to the Logia article I referred to--I still think it is a fine article in terms of explaining the Christological view of the Office. While I’m not exactly convinced about the words of Jesus/words from Jesus distinction, nor do I think this was necessarily Luther or Walther’s point, the paper stands on its own even without this point. As someone else has pointed out to me, Anon’s dismissal of the essay on this one point is like the Jesuits who were accused of killing three men and a dog and in their defense proudly produced the dog alive. Give the readers some credit. Let them read the article for themselves, rather than dissuading them from reading it by reproducing a single, out of context, non-essential point. <BR/><BR/>Oh, and I’ll be waiting for that list (or paragraph). <BR/><BR/>Thanks, <BR/><BR/>LMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-29070212995089112472007-09-20T17:36:00.000-05:002007-09-20T17:36:00.000-05:00Wait, Luther was infallible?I never knew that.Wait, Luther was infallible?<BR/><BR/>I never knew that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-26896045961854320252007-09-20T15:25:00.000-05:002007-09-20T15:25:00.000-05:00Anon (which one?) said:"'The point is that the Wor...Anon (which one?) said:<BR/><BR/>"'The point is that the Word proclaimed by the Pastor is MORE effective than that read by the laity.'<BR/><BR/>I don't think I need to comment on that.<BR/><BR/>The readers can make up their own minds about a statement like that."<BR/><BR/>Hmm...where is Mr. "quoting w/o providing context is unethical" when I need him. This is the part you left out:<BR/><BR/>"The lay/Clergy distinction is discernible also in the application of the Word. In Kirche und Amt, C.F.W. Walther quoted Luther on this issue. <BR/><BR/>'Indeed, many blurt out and say: 'Why do we need more pastors and ministers, since we can read [the Bible] ourselves at home?' So they go their way in carnal security, and do not read it at home. Or even if they do read it at home, it is neither as fruitful nor as effective as the Word is efficacious when it is publicly proclaimed by the mouth of the pastor whom God has called and appointed to preach and teach it to you.[18]'<BR/><BR/>It is not suggested here that the written Word is without effect. The point is that the Word proclaimed by the Pastor is MORE effective than that read by the laity. How could Luther (with Walther's blessing) make such a contention? This statement is difficult--if not impossible--to explain unless reading words about Jesus is somehow different from hearing words from Jesus.[19] In that case, the Office is once again the difference.[20]"<BR/><BR/>So...is it Luther that you disagree with? With all due respect, based on what I’ve seen from you thus far, he is a little more credible on this matter.<BR/><BR/>LMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-56807095531985326912007-09-20T14:43:00.000-05:002007-09-20T14:43:00.000-05:00From the first article that LM listed:"The point i...From the first article that LM listed:<BR/><BR/>"The point is that the Word proclaimed by the Pastor is MORE effective than that read by the laity."<BR/><BR/>I don't think I need to comment on that.<BR/><BR/>The readers can make up their own minds about a statement like that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-33092890739896296702007-09-20T10:49:00.000-05:002007-09-20T10:49:00.000-05:00Randomdan, If I understand you correctly, you prob...Randomdan, <BR/><BR/>If I understand you correctly, you probably will not find what you are looking for among "our scholars." However, if I have misunderstood you, and your confusion is more general, below is a link to an article from Logia about the Christological view of the Office:<BR/><BR/>http://users.aol.com/SemperRef/playing.html<BR/><BR/>You might find this article from the MM helpful too:<BR/><BR/>http://www.motleymagpie.org/v2n1_a6.htm<BR/><BR/>Enjoy, <BR/><BR/>JesseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-91671802067253704562007-09-20T07:00:00.000-05:002007-09-20T07:00:00.000-05:00randomdan,I'm not sure I understand your question....randomdan,<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure I understand your question. What exactly haven't you been able to figure out about Christology and OHM?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-14589381662766885302007-09-20T06:55:00.000-05:002007-09-20T06:55:00.000-05:00Anonymous,I know this isn't the place for complica...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>I know this isn't the place for complicated theological treatise. The answer, however, should not be all that complicated. Two things concern me. First: I cannot find anything written by our scholars on the topic of the OHM and Christology. Maybe there is something out there, but I haven't found it. If you know somewhere to look (and I have looked at the sem website), let me know. Second: I haven't been able to figure it out myself. I am not the brightest person in the world, but I can manage to think my way through problems like this. I don't have an answer yet, and I've thought about this for over a year.<BR/><BR/>If anybody has found an answer to this question, I would appreciate hearing about it.RandomDanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03787185732614416948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-49606057065045711572007-09-19T18:34:00.000-05:002007-09-19T18:34:00.000-05:00randomdan, This isn't exactly the easiest format i...randomdan, <BR/><BR/>This isn't exactly the easiest format in which to post an extended theological treatise. There are many men, much more brilliant than I, who have written papers on just such a thing. Many can be found on the Seminary website.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-61764637451602067492007-09-19T17:38:00.000-05:002007-09-19T17:38:00.000-05:00Ahh, I'm glad to see anonymous is so amused by my ...Ahh, I'm glad to see anonymous is so amused by my typing errors. I went to publik skool, yu nnow.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous, here is a simple challenge for you. Defend WELS's current understanding of the OHM in terms of Christology and the doctrine of vocation. If it is correct, it shouldn't be a problem.RandomDanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03787185732614416948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-74127768834791303052007-09-19T16:47:00.000-05:002007-09-19T16:47:00.000-05:00"Is it your belief that AC V speaks directly, spec..."Is it your belief that AC V speaks directly, specifically, and only of the pastoral ministry?"<BR/><BR/>This is an impossible conversation. It is like we are speaking two different languages. The problem, I fear, is that many in the WELS only know the answers to their own questions. When a different question is asked, you don't know how to respond, so you simply change the question.<BR/><BR/>Randomdan is right. Pr. K is right. It is all about Christ. Once you understand that, then maybe you will see the point I am trying to make. Reading some of the articles I have refered to may help. Pr. Rolf Preus also has a paper relevant to this topic on his Christforus.org site. I've hijacked John's topic long enough. I wish you all the best. <BR/><BR/>LMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-67021547876986756202007-09-19T13:33:00.000-05:002007-09-19T13:33:00.000-05:00Anonymous,I have asked you not to put words in my ...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>I have asked you not to put words in my mouth, yet you continue to do so. <BR/><BR/>You are being legalistic. I'm not giving anyone anything to do because there is nothing "to do". We come to Christ with nothing but our sins. He fills our emptiness with forgiveness, life, and salvation. <BR/><BR/>I appreciate your zeal. I hope you use it in your vocation as employer/employee, parent, child, and whatever else you may be so that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father who is in heaven. And, yes, I hope you also share your faith, bring your children up in the fear of the Lord, and assist the work of the Church in whatever capacity you are able.<BR/><BR/>Out of respect for John and the topics he wishes to discuss, this is the last time I will respond to you. <BR/><BR/>Peace in Christ,<BR/>Pr. KAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com