tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post7035454236402946151..comments2023-04-26T04:36:47.052-05:00Comments on Bailing Water: How Lutheran Are You?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger316125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-40252508025815144072007-11-30T09:20:00.000-06:002007-11-30T09:20:00.000-06:00Thanks, I'll check it out. I just finished reading...Thanks, I'll check it out. I just finished reading (over the past year) <I>Fire and Staff</I> by Klemet Preus.<BR/><BR/>RobAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-4195456937485297452007-11-29T20:39:00.000-06:002007-11-29T20:39:00.000-06:00Rob,The term publicly (publice in Latin, offentlic...Rob,<BR/><BR/>The term publicly (publice in Latin, offentlich in German)that is used in AC XIV has the sense of officially and for all to benefit from, as opposed to unofficially and hidden. Somehwat in the sense of what we mean when we say somone is a public official.<BR/><BR/>For a good study try to get Robert Preus' monograph "The Doctrine of the Call in the Lutheran Confessions and Lutheran Orthodoxy."<BR/><BR/>RTMMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-18959174060752400072007-11-29T19:36:00.000-06:002007-11-29T19:36:00.000-06:00Paul,I guess I would first of all ask why isn’t th...Paul,<BR/><BR/>I guess I would first of all ask why isn’t the pastor teaching these classes? <BR/><BR/>But to your question, these layman should be called, examined and ordained (which is what the rite vocatus includes). But let’s go back. Why do we examine our pastors as we do (this means that have been proven qualified, which the church does by Seminary training and by examining their doctrine.) Obvious, so they may meet the qualifications set down in Scripture (1 Timothy 3:1-8, Titus 1:5-11) because of the grave and important tasks they have. Should we expect any less from any one who assumes the office? I think not. <BR/><BR/>Sadly, many churches in the WELS do just that. But I ask, if a man is not qualified to be a pastor (whose call is to rightly preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments) then is he qualified to teach in the church? I always say, you can call any man you want, but he should be qualified and he should do the AC V things.<BR/><BR/>Now the WELS answer to your question (I am assuming you are WELS) is they have already been “called” as they have been asked or assigned to do this task and they are competent (or so they say) to do the job. The WELS would say that AC XIV has been met. But again, as I said above, if they are not qualified to assume the task of the pastorate (whose duties are nothing more than laid out in AC V and are qualified according to AC XIV) why should they have this little piece of the ministry pie. Should the qualifications be any less? I guess I would ask, are these men qualified to assume this office, and if so, call, examine and ordain them.<BR/><BR/>RTMMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-12574517532408180302007-11-29T19:21:00.000-06:002007-11-29T19:21:00.000-06:00That is curious. Something must have been written ...That is curious. Something must have been written with opposing views of "publicly" teach. Can anyone point me in the direction of some material about that? Preferably confessional material, but I probably don't use that adjective correctly.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your patience with my inquiries. I'm sure much of this is basic stuff that someone who has been properly catechized should know. Unfortunately, the church I joined had Bible information classes which didn't study either catechism.<BR/><BR/>RobAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-85557517992590509752007-11-29T18:57:00.000-06:002007-11-29T18:57:00.000-06:00RTMM, At my church we have lay people teaching adu...RTMM, <BR/><BR/>At my church we have lay people teaching adult Sunday School classes. As you noted, the Augsburg Confession, Article XIV says, "No one should publicly teach in the Church, or administer the Sacraments, without a rightly ordered call." <BR/><BR/>Does this mean that we shouldn't have lay people teaching these classes? Could my church "cure" this by calling these laymen to be Adult Sunday School teachers? Or does a rightly ordered call involve more than just installing them as teachers at our next worship service?<BR/><BR/>Thank you,<BR/><BR/>PaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-76984671871421381512007-11-29T18:21:00.000-06:002007-11-29T18:21:00.000-06:00Rob,I can't think of anything in particular to rea...Rob,<BR/><BR/>I can't think of anything in particular to read in regards to the "closed" gave way to "close" issue. It just seemed to happen over time, especially in the 70's when conservative Lutherans didn't want to appear so cold by refusing some the Sacrament. As far as I am concerned neither term is all that useful as each can lead to misunderstandings.<BR/><BR/>You wrote,<BR/><BR/>"What do you mean by '... to mean those rightly called into the Office (if you beleive there is one).'"<BR/><BR/>Official WELS says that God did not establish an office of preaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments but He instituted those functions (preaching and administering the Sacraments.) They say any way that gets done is ok as long as it is done orderly. Complicating their view is the view that everything done in the church is ministry, so whether you are a pastor or a custodian you are in the ministry. Further complicating that is their view that women may hold any of these ministries, even the pastorate as long as she does not exercise authority over a man (and I won't even go into all the double talk that goes on in regards to that issue.) Believe it or not, I know of one WELS church that decided not to have a woman principal in their parochial school (all the teachers were women) because she would have to tell the custodian what to do, a no-no.<BR/><BR/>For my part I believe that God instituted an office as Augsburg Confession V says. <BR/><BR/>RTMMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-67464975680831836132007-11-29T14:03:00.000-06:002007-11-29T14:03:00.000-06:00My last post was supposed to ask how closed commun...My last post was supposed to ask how closed communion became close instead. I'd be interested in reading the history behind the terms.<BR/><BR/>Sorry.<BR/><BR/>RobAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-61665721096067868462007-11-29T13:14:00.001-06:002007-11-29T13:14:00.001-06:00Thanks, I was wondering how closed communion inste...Thanks, I was wondering how closed communion instead. If you could direct me to where I could read more about that, I'd appreciate it.<BR/><BR/>Also, from what I understand, the debate lies within Lutheranism about which calls are being referred to with regards to who should distribute. Some teach only pastors and others teach any office in the church? I need to research more about calls.<BR/><BR/>What do you mean by "... to mean those rightly called into the Office <B>(if you beleive there is one).</B>"<BR/><BR/>You've been helpful.<BR/><BR/>RobAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-83470947133013737982007-11-29T13:14:00.000-06:002007-11-29T13:14:00.000-06:00Thanks, I was wondering how closed communion inste...Thanks, I was wondering how closed communion instead. If you could direct me to where I could read more about that, I'd appreciate it.<BR/><BR/>Also, from what I understand, the debate lies within Lutheranism about which calls are being referred to with regards to who should distribute. Some teach only pastors and others teach any office in the church? I need to research more about calls.<BR/><BR/>What do you mean by "... to mean those rightly called into the Office <B>(if you beleive there is one).</B>"<BR/><BR/>You've been helpful.<BR/><BR/>RobAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-83865399528380528182007-11-29T10:36:00.000-06:002007-11-29T10:36:00.000-06:00Anon.I believe everything I write, unless I am sho...Anon.<BR/><BR/>I believe everything I write, unless I am shown it is wrong. Then I claim aliens took over my body.<BR/><BR/>RTMMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-6660417176397954952007-11-29T10:31:00.000-06:002007-11-29T10:31:00.000-06:00RTMM,OK, that explanation works for me. I just wa...RTMM,<BR/><BR/>OK, that explanation works for me. I just wanted to make sure that you believed that last sentence you wrote.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-70122130481732307192007-11-29T10:29:00.000-06:002007-11-29T10:29:00.000-06:00Anon.It is a distinction without a difference. Th...Anon.<BR/><BR/>It is a distinction without a difference. The term "clergy" is understood in common language and in Lutheran discussions (as one hopes this is) to mean those rightly called into the Office (if you beleive there is one). That pastor who resigned his call is no longer a clergyman. That layman who is rightly called is a clergyman.<BR/><BR/>RTMMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-39102436578181380782007-11-29T10:15:00.000-06:002007-11-29T10:15:00.000-06:00Wait a second, RTMM, do the Confessions say that n...Wait a second, RTMM, do the Confessions say that non-clergy can't administer the sacrament or that those who are rightly called can't administer the sacrament? There's a difference.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-38386448060839529542007-11-29T09:47:00.000-06:002007-11-29T09:47:00.000-06:00Rob,Yes, the ELCA celebrates a valid sacrament (th...Rob,<BR/><BR/>Yes, the ELCA celebrates a valid sacrament (though that is now becoming a question because they are now beginning to equivocate on the real presence, but that’s another thread).<BR/><BR/>As to your second question, <BR/><BR/>"If this is true, and agreed that no church is 'perfect,' it is not necessary to have complete agreement with all the teachings of a congregation (or synod) to partake of a valid sacrament?"<BR/><BR/>No it is not necessary to have complete agreement with all the teachings of that church (granting they do not invalidate the Sacrament) to partake of a valid Sacrament, but there are other reasons we would pass on communing with them. <BR/><BR/>However, the judgment of a church as to whether it is 'perfect' or not is not based on the perfection of the congregation but the public confession of that church. Does this church correctly proclaim the Gospel and rightly administer the Sacraments (and not just have it in their constitutions or have the correct initials on their church sign and nauseatingly repeat, "we teach the word in its truth and purity.")<BR/><BR/>And you ask<BR/><BR/>"And, is it closed communion or close communion?"<BR/><BR/>Yes, and open too. Open to all who come in faith, closed to all who come impenitent or whose public life or confession would disrupt the communion, close (a kinder, gentler and new term coined so that we Lutherans don’t seem so cold) in that we have a communion with the Holy things and the Holy people.<BR/><BR/>And to your second post. Non-clergy, as you write may not administer the Sacraments. The Augsburg Confession, Article XIV forbids it, "No one should publicly teach in the Church, or administer the Sacraments, without a rightly ordered call." <BR/><BR/>RTMMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-21281500323119162972007-11-29T09:17:00.000-06:002007-11-29T09:17:00.000-06:00And, as previously inquired if we've settled my fi...And, as previously inquired if we've settled my first question, what/where do the Confessions address the role of the pastor in the distribution and the permission of a non-clergy to distribute? <BR/><BR/>Thanks.<BR/><BR/>RobAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-57461398867714018612007-11-29T09:03:00.000-06:002007-11-29T09:03:00.000-06:00So my next conclusion would be that the sacrament ...So my next conclusion would be that the sacrament is valid when "performed" with the words of institution despite a church being heterodox such as ELCA for instance? I wouldn't commune there because of not sharing their heterodox doctrine, but their sacrament would still be valid?<BR/><BR/>If this is true, and agreed that no church is "perfect," it is not necessary to have complete agreement with all the teachings of a congregation (or synod) to partake of a valid sacrament?<BR/><BR/>And, is it closed communion or close communion?<BR/><BR/>Thanks.<BR/><BR/>RobAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-91277790286369410752007-11-29T08:48:00.000-06:002007-11-29T08:48:00.000-06:00Rob,Actually that is what the Scriptures and Confe...Rob,<BR/><BR/>Actually that is what the Scriptures and Confessions say. As you note, it is not reception of the Sacrament, it is receiving it in faith that brings us the benefit (that is, to receive worthily), faith alone.<BR/><BR/>RTMMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-20202322302316936372007-11-29T06:42:00.000-06:002007-11-29T06:42:00.000-06:00Could it be said this way, that, as the sacrifice ...Could it be said this way, that, as the sacrifice of Christ was for the sins of the whole world, only those who believe receive the benefit (that being salvation and belief not being a decision the individual makes - all glory to God)?<BR/><BR/>So, regarding Real Presence in the sacrament, when the ordinary elements of bread and wine are joined with the words of institution - a sacrament is made, because of Christ. But, to receive the benefits, you have to believe the Words of Christ - done for us for the remission of our sins (again, our belief not being a "choice" or decision we make with our own reason and intellect)? So, if the sacrament is valid with natural element and word, unbelief is to the recipients damnation?<BR/><BR/>This may be too much human reason and non-Scriptural or Confessional, so I welcome your input.<BR/><BR/>Thanks.<BR/><BR/>RobAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-67165915644950509012007-11-28T22:51:00.000-06:002007-11-28T22:51:00.000-06:00it seems I realized my errors now thanks bee to Go...it seems I realized my errors now thanks bee to God learning and edification can be done among brothers as well as in the classroomMichael Schotteyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04663450709156743366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-20473605497221734672007-11-28T22:46:00.000-06:002007-11-28T22:46:00.000-06:00Anon. at 10:39,Good to hear the WELS seminary agre...Anon. at 10:39,<BR/><BR/>Good to hear the WELS seminary agrees with the Catholic, i.e. Lutheran teaching, this time.<BR/><BR/>RTMMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-25763571175005230532007-11-28T22:39:00.000-06:002007-11-28T22:39:00.000-06:00Just for the record, the view espoused here by RTM...Just for the record, the view espoused here by RTMM is exactly what the WELS teaches and what is taught at the Seminary. Just didn't want anyone to think that Mr. Schottey's (original) views represented the WELS position. They didn't--as he will realize once he gets to the Sem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-8692963914615388782007-11-28T22:19:00.000-06:002007-11-28T22:19:00.000-06:00I would agree. And you 're welcome.RTMMI would agree. And you 're welcome.<BR/><BR/>RTMMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-53113857785126060922007-11-28T22:15:00.000-06:002007-11-28T22:15:00.000-06:00Thank you for your chemnitz trap, perhaps I should...Thank you for your chemnitz trap, perhaps I should have been more inclined to catch myself falling into it. The exact edition of the Enchiridion that you used is sitting next to my laptop and has been all night. I cracked it many times but had not fallen on pg. 121. <BR/><BR/>Thank you for your work. If I understand correctly the following statements are true. <BR/><BR/>1) If a congregation holds to the real presence (esse) of The Sacrament of the Altar it is valid regardless of what they believe concerning the benefits. Thus drinking damnation. <BR/><BR/>2) If a congregation holds a view falsely about the essence, then it is not a sacrament they only have the bread and wine.<BR/><BR/>3) Thus the essence of the Sacrament of Baptism is in the trinitarian teaching not the teachings of the benefits. Thus the baptisms of the Baptists, Christian Reformed, Dutch Reformed, etc are valid, but if Arian was here, the baptism of his followers would not be (denied the deity of Christ)<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your time and your patience.Michael Schotteyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04663450709156743366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-3163923103682031942007-11-28T21:52:00.000-06:002007-11-28T21:52:00.000-06:00Michael, you write,"Therefore why would the same n...Michael, you write,<BR/><BR/>"Therefore why would the same not hold true for Baptism? We proclaim one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. But if the myriad of hetrodox (sic) churches believe, teach and confess incorrectly concerning baptism, that: Baptism is a washing away of only original and not actual sin; It is only a ceremonial washing. If the name of the trinity spoken is not believed and taught as it is taught in the Bible...etc etc etc. Why is one sacrament not invalidated by improper confession, yet the other not?"<BR/><BR/>I will defer to Chemnitz (well, I always do) when he writes,<BR/><BR/>"Use surely does not make a Sacrament but the Word, ordinance and institution of Christ. And there is a difference between the essence of a Sacrament and its use." ("Ministry, Word and Sacrament" CPH 1981, translated by Luther Poellet, page 121)<BR/><BR/>Now, he wrote this in regards to the Sacrament of the Altar but he and the Lutheran Church applies this to baptism as well. (This is what I was referring to when I spoke of the esse or essence and the benefit (i.e. use) of the Sacrament in one of my posts. I was setting a Chemnitz trap.)<BR/><BR/>Most Lutheran theologians (though I hesitate to say all because there may be some who hold that these baptisms are not valid) hold that a Trinitarian Baptism (that is by those who hold to the Trinity and Baptism in the name of the Trinity) in the name of the Holy Trinity, the name being the work of Christ sent by the Father in the Spirit, is a valid one. The essence, word and element, are there. It is in the beneficium or use where they err. Again, errors in other areas do not invalidate the proper Word used with water act, granting that the word "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" is not denied (i.e. as it is by non Trinitarian churches who yet use the so called Trinitarian formula). <BR/><BR/>The example of the Corinthians is a case in point, bad theology on the use of the Supper, but they had the Supper, the body and blood of Christ, nonetheless, and eaten, in their case, to their judgment.<BR/><BR/>RTMMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-69304940637683327082007-11-28T20:49:00.000-06:002007-11-28T20:49:00.000-06:00RTMM, I believe I recanted previously when I said"...RTMM, I believe I recanted previously when I said<BR/><BR/>"I retract my statements about those who do not believe in the Real Presence. Their condemnation is deep rooted and comes from their confession not in their mishandling of the Sacrament, which is not present." <BR/><BR/>Thus I must change from the proposed teacher to the one being taught because I am confused in this way...<BR/><BR/>I sent this to a professor of mine<BR/><BR/>"I have been taught on numerous occasions that the efficacy of the Sacraments rests on the Word and not the worthiness of the person giving the Sacraments.<BR/><BR/>However, Luther in his 1528 "Large Confession on the Supper" (part of Article VII of the Epitome of the Formula of Concord) writes, "...if they first changed God's Word and ordinance and interpreted it differently, as do the current enemies of the Sacrament. They admittedly have only bread and wine..."<BR/><BR/>Therefore why would the same not hold true for Baptism? We proclaim one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. But if the myriad of hetrodox churches believe, teach and confess incorrectly concerning baptism, that: Baptism is a washing away of only original and not actual sin; It is only a ceremonial washing. If the name of the trinity spoken is not believed and taught as it is taught in the Bible...etc etc etc. Why is one sacrament not invalidated by improper confession, yet the other not?"Michael Schotteyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04663450709156743366noreply@blogger.com