Archived Posts » 59,726,163
Michelle Bachmann quits her church
7/15/2011 8:22:45 PM
Apparently she'd rather be President than hold true to her faith. Obviously she is no Martin Luther. Perhaps it's best we know that she'd cave now than after (or if) she was elected.
Bachmann quits
Holding to our tenets of faith isn't always easy. I pray I would hold true to my faith when things get tough.
Not to start a flame war, but rather quash one, it is the Office of the Papacy that we (Lutherans) (and not just us, either) hold to be antichrist. And the love flows both ways; read the Council of Trent. These differences in beliefs are reasons why we aren't all Catholic or Lutheran or Baptist or... It is nothing new here. It's just inconvenient for politics. There is nothing here that removes a Lutheran or Catholic or Baptist or... from holding office and performing its duties fairly. Smearing JFK for his faith was wrong and he proved it by governing without any "Vatican influence" as those who smeared him would have you believe. Does anyone truly believe Mitt Romney woud move the capital to Salt Lake City? Richard Nixon with his Quaker background prosecuted a war. Why would Michelle Bachmann bomb the Vatican? Faith is personal.
Bachmann quits
Holding to our tenets of faith isn't always easy. I pray I would hold true to my faith when things get tough.
Not to start a flame war, but rather quash one, it is the Office of the Papacy that we (Lutherans) (and not just us, either) hold to be antichrist. And the love flows both ways; read the Council of Trent. These differences in beliefs are reasons why we aren't all Catholic or Lutheran or Baptist or... It is nothing new here. It's just inconvenient for politics. There is nothing here that removes a Lutheran or Catholic or Baptist or... from holding office and performing its duties fairly. Smearing JFK for his faith was wrong and he proved it by governing without any "Vatican influence" as those who smeared him would have you believe. Does anyone truly believe Mitt Romney woud move the capital to Salt Lake City? Richard Nixon with his Quaker background prosecuted a war. Why would Michelle Bachmann bomb the Vatican? Faith is personal.
7/15/2011 8:26:36 PM
My folks quit going to their church they went to for decades after the church lurched politically left over the last few years.
7/15/2011 8:31:23 PM
Originally Posted By WindKnot1-1:
Apparently she'd rather be President than hold true to her faith. Obviously she is no Martin Luther. Perhaps it's best we know that she'd cave now than after (or if) she was elected.
Bachmann quits
Holding to our tenets of faith isn't always easy. I pray I would hold true to my faith when things get tough.
Not to start a flame war, but rather quash one, it is the Office of the Papacy that we (Lutherans) (and not just us, either) hold to be antichrist. And the love flows both ways; read the Council of Trent. These differences in beliefs are reasons why we aren't all Catholic or Lutheran or Baptist or... It is nothing new here. It's just inconvenient for politics. There is nothing here that removes a Lutheran or Catholic or Baptist or... from holding office and performing its duties fairly. Smearing JFK for his faith was wrong and he proved it by governing without any "Vatican influence" as those who smeared him would have you believe. Does anyone truly believe Mitt Romney woud move the capital to Salt Lake City? Richard Nixon with his Quaker background prosecuted a war. Why would Michelle Bachmann bomb the Vatican? Faith is personal.
Apparently she'd rather be President than hold true to her faith. Obviously she is no Martin Luther. Perhaps it's best we know that she'd cave now than after (or if) she was elected.
Bachmann quits
Holding to our tenets of faith isn't always easy. I pray I would hold true to my faith when things get tough.
Not to start a flame war, but rather quash one, it is the Office of the Papacy that we (Lutherans) (and not just us, either) hold to be antichrist. And the love flows both ways; read the Council of Trent. These differences in beliefs are reasons why we aren't all Catholic or Lutheran or Baptist or... It is nothing new here. It's just inconvenient for politics. There is nothing here that removes a Lutheran or Catholic or Baptist or... from holding office and performing its duties fairly. Smearing JFK for his faith was wrong and he proved it by governing without any "Vatican influence" as those who smeared him would have you believe. Does anyone truly believe Mitt Romney woud move the capital to Salt Lake City? Richard Nixon with his Quaker background prosecuted a war. Why would Michelle Bachmann bomb the Vatican? Faith is personal.
Um....Is your Faith in God or in your Denomination?
Wow. Learn something new every day.
7/15/2011 8:43:15 PM
Hochmuth said that a change in membership is not out of the ordinary.
"You have people who are on the books as members, but they may have gone
on to another church; they may not be attending a church anywhere.
There’s all sorts of circumstances.”
Becky Rogness, a spokesperson in Bachmann’s congressional office, said the Congresswoman now attends a nondenominational church in the Stillwater area but did not know the name of the church or how long she had been attending.
Hochmuth said that, "My understanding of the situation was the timing of the request for release was far more coincidental than strategic.”
Here's the full article, it reads a little different than the NBC Hit Piece:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/15/michele-bachmann-officially-leaves-her-church/?hpt=hp_t2
7/15/2011 8:55:33 PM
This all seems odd to me. You have to formally quit a church??? I have never applied to a church. I have gone to a church, sometimes for years. When my situation changed and had to change churches, I simply stopped going to one, and started going to another.
And who the hell cares what church she goes to? As long as it isn't Jermiah Wright's hate factory, why should it matter?
7/15/2011 8:58:59 PM
EDITED - Serious, respectful, and on-topic only in this forum, please. HS
7/15/2011 9:03:58 PM
EDITED - Serious, respectful, and on-topic only in this forum, please. HS
7/15/2011 9:10:32 PM
My faith is in God AS DEFINED AND CONFESSED by my denomination. Simply believing in a "devine being" is not enough. The Christian God (my God) defines himself and his qualities quite clearly. To not believe something about him or what he has done when he declares it himself is wrong and worthy of correction. It matters what you believe and confess. This is one reason we do not share communion with those who believe and confess differently than us. Again, not as snobs, but rather as a loving means of correction. Paul warns us that to take communion lightly or allow those who do is at our peril. Not all believe that.
Our denomination believes STRONGLY in the seperation of church and state. We have had members of Congress from both sides of the political spectrum. For us as far as our secular government is concerned, our faith ONLY conflicts with government only if we are COMPELLED to do something against God's will. For example, while we believe that abortion is wrong for example; the government (at its peril) has the right to allow it. it does not have the right to COMPEL it and we would disobey.
This is what we confess about the roles of the church and the state:
CHURCH AND STATE
1. We believe that not only the church but also the state, that is, all governmental authority, has been instituted by God. "The authorities that exist have been established by God" (Romans 13:1). Christians will, therefore, for conscience's sake obey the government that rules over them (Romans 13:5) unless that government commands them to disobey God (Acts 5:29).
2. We believe that God has given the church and the state their own distinct responsibilities. To the church the Lord has assigned the responsibility of calling sinners to repentance, of proclaiming forgiveness through the cross of Christ, and of encouraging believers in their Christian living. The purpose is to lead the elect of God to eternal salvation through faith in Christ. To the state the Lord has assigned the duty of keeping good order and peace, of punishing the wrongdoer, and of arranging all civil matters in society (Romans 13:3,4). The purpose is "that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness" (1 Timothy 2:2).
3. We believe that the only means God has given to the church to carry out its assigned purpose are the Word and sacraments (Matthew 28:19,20). People are converted by the Holy Spirit only through the message of law and gospel, sin and grace, the wrath of God against sin and the mercy of God in Christ. We believe that the means given to the state to fulfill its assignment is civil law with its punishments and rewards, set up and used according to the light of reason (Romans 13:4). The light of reason includes the natural knowledge of God, the natural knowledge of the law, and conscience.
4. We believe the proper relation is preserved between the church and the state only when each remains within its divinely assigned sphere and uses its divinely entrusted means. The church should not exercise civil authority nor interfere with the state as the state carries out its responsibilities. The state should not become a messenger of the gospel nor interfere with the church in its preaching mission. The church should not attempt to use the civil law and force to lead people to Christ. The state should not seek to govern by means of the gospel. On the other hand, the church and the state may cooperate in an endeavor as long as each remains within its assigned place and uses its entrusted means.
5. We believe that Christians are citizens of both realms and serve God by faithfully fulfilling their duties in both (Romans 13:6,7).
6. We reject any attempt by the state to restrict the free exercise of religion.
7. We reject any views that look to the church to guide and influence the state directly in the conduct of its affairs.
8. We reject any attempt on the part of the church to seek the financial assistance of the state in carrying out its saving purpose.
9. We reject any views that hold that citizens are free to disobey such laws of the state with which they disagree on the basis of personal judgment.
This is what Scripture teaches about church and state. This we believe, teach, and confess.
Note especially parts 5-9. There is nothing to fear from a religious point of view from Bachmann's membership in our denomination. Apparently it was inconvenient to believe homosexuality is wrong. She managed to fight off religious attacks in the past while running for Congress and did it sucessfullly. Nothing in our tenets has changed from those days. Apparently this time though the prize it too big.
Our denomination believes STRONGLY in the seperation of church and state. We have had members of Congress from both sides of the political spectrum. For us as far as our secular government is concerned, our faith ONLY conflicts with government only if we are COMPELLED to do something against God's will. For example, while we believe that abortion is wrong for example; the government (at its peril) has the right to allow it. it does not have the right to COMPEL it and we would disobey.
This is what we confess about the roles of the church and the state:
CHURCH AND STATE
1. We believe that not only the church but also the state, that is, all governmental authority, has been instituted by God. "The authorities that exist have been established by God" (Romans 13:1). Christians will, therefore, for conscience's sake obey the government that rules over them (Romans 13:5) unless that government commands them to disobey God (Acts 5:29).
2. We believe that God has given the church and the state their own distinct responsibilities. To the church the Lord has assigned the responsibility of calling sinners to repentance, of proclaiming forgiveness through the cross of Christ, and of encouraging believers in their Christian living. The purpose is to lead the elect of God to eternal salvation through faith in Christ. To the state the Lord has assigned the duty of keeping good order and peace, of punishing the wrongdoer, and of arranging all civil matters in society (Romans 13:3,4). The purpose is "that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness" (1 Timothy 2:2).
3. We believe that the only means God has given to the church to carry out its assigned purpose are the Word and sacraments (Matthew 28:19,20). People are converted by the Holy Spirit only through the message of law and gospel, sin and grace, the wrath of God against sin and the mercy of God in Christ. We believe that the means given to the state to fulfill its assignment is civil law with its punishments and rewards, set up and used according to the light of reason (Romans 13:4). The light of reason includes the natural knowledge of God, the natural knowledge of the law, and conscience.
4. We believe the proper relation is preserved between the church and the state only when each remains within its divinely assigned sphere and uses its divinely entrusted means. The church should not exercise civil authority nor interfere with the state as the state carries out its responsibilities. The state should not become a messenger of the gospel nor interfere with the church in its preaching mission. The church should not attempt to use the civil law and force to lead people to Christ. The state should not seek to govern by means of the gospel. On the other hand, the church and the state may cooperate in an endeavor as long as each remains within its assigned place and uses its entrusted means.
5. We believe that Christians are citizens of both realms and serve God by faithfully fulfilling their duties in both (Romans 13:6,7).
6. We reject any attempt by the state to restrict the free exercise of religion.
7. We reject any views that look to the church to guide and influence the state directly in the conduct of its affairs.
8. We reject any attempt on the part of the church to seek the financial assistance of the state in carrying out its saving purpose.
9. We reject any views that hold that citizens are free to disobey such laws of the state with which they disagree on the basis of personal judgment.
This is what Scripture teaches about church and state. This we believe, teach, and confess.
Note especially parts 5-9. There is nothing to fear from a religious point of view from Bachmann's membership in our denomination. Apparently it was inconvenient to believe homosexuality is wrong. She managed to fight off religious attacks in the past while running for Congress and did it sucessfullly. Nothing in our tenets has changed from those days. Apparently this time though the prize it too big.
7/15/2011 9:22:15 PM
Originally Posted By sparky923:
Um....Is your Faith in God or in your Denomination?
Wow. Learn something new every day.
Originally Posted By WindKnot1-1:
Apparently she'd rather be President than hold true to her faith. Obviously she is no Martin Luther. Perhaps it's best we know that she'd cave now than after (or if) she was elected.
Bachmann quits
Holding to our tenets of faith isn't always easy. I pray I would hold true to my faith when things get tough.
Not to start a flame war, but rather quash one, it is the Office of the Papacy that we (Lutherans) (and not just us, either) hold to be antichrist. And the love flows both ways; read the Council of Trent. These differences in beliefs are reasons why we aren't all Catholic or Lutheran or Baptist or... It is nothing new here. It's just inconvenient for politics. There is nothing here that removes a Lutheran or Catholic or Baptist or... from holding office and performing its duties fairly. Smearing JFK for his faith was wrong and he proved it by governing without any "Vatican influence" as those who smeared him would have you believe. Does anyone truly believe Mitt Romney woud move the capital to Salt Lake City? Richard Nixon with his Quaker background prosecuted a war. Why would Michelle Bachmann bomb the Vatican? Faith is personal.
Apparently she'd rather be President than hold true to her faith. Obviously she is no Martin Luther. Perhaps it's best we know that she'd cave now than after (or if) she was elected.
Bachmann quits
Holding to our tenets of faith isn't always easy. I pray I would hold true to my faith when things get tough.
Not to start a flame war, but rather quash one, it is the Office of the Papacy that we (Lutherans) (and not just us, either) hold to be antichrist. And the love flows both ways; read the Council of Trent. These differences in beliefs are reasons why we aren't all Catholic or Lutheran or Baptist or... It is nothing new here. It's just inconvenient for politics. There is nothing here that removes a Lutheran or Catholic or Baptist or... from holding office and performing its duties fairly. Smearing JFK for his faith was wrong and he proved it by governing without any "Vatican influence" as those who smeared him would have you believe. Does anyone truly believe Mitt Romney woud move the capital to Salt Lake City? Richard Nixon with his Quaker background prosecuted a war. Why would Michelle Bachmann bomb the Vatican? Faith is personal.
Um....Is your Faith in God or in your Denomination?
Wow. Learn something new every day.
Good point!!
7/15/2011 9:31:24 PM
Read above post. It does matter. Do you wish to be taught by false prophets? Would you willingly belong to a church with unsound doctrine? Would you confess that you believe as they do?
7/15/2011 9:44:43 PM
Edit
7/15/2011 9:47:35 PM
unless she is a christian and jew hating muslim the left just will hate her to death
7/15/2011 9:58:19 PM
The left is scared to death of Bachmann. It's pretty obvious.
7/16/2011 12:16:05 AM
Originally Posted By WindKnot1-1:
Not to start a flame war, but rather quash one, it is the Office of the Papacy that we (Lutherans) (and not just us, either) hold to be antichrist.
Interesting how you change what your denomination says to something different. The official web site of your denomination is replete with anti-Catholic statements, and "the Antichrist" is not limited to just the Office of the Papacy:Not to start a flame war, but rather quash one, it is the Office of the Papacy that we (Lutherans) (and not just us, either) hold to be antichrist.
"Now, it is manifest that the Roman pontiffs, with their adherents [in other words, folks like me], defend [and practice] godless doctrines and godless services. And the marks [all the vices] of Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the Pope and his adherents."
"On this account they ought to desert and execrate the Pope with his adherents as the kingdom of Antichrist; "
"For Paul, 2 Th 2:3, in describing to the Thessalonians Antichrist, calls him "an adversary of Christ, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God." He speaks therefore of one ruling in the Church, not of heathen kings, and he calls this one the adversary of Christ, because he will devise doctrine conflicting with the Gospel and will assume to himself divine authority."
"We reject the opinion that the identification of the papacy with the Antichrist was merely a historical judgment valid only at the time of the Reformation."
––––––––-
By your own denomination's logic, the Antichrist is not just the Pope, but also those faithful Catholics who adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church (folks like me). Now, if one is the Antichrist, one cannot be a Christian since the Antichrist is an adversary of Christ who opposes Him. By logical deduction, then... Catholics who knowingly and willingly remain faithful to the teachings of Christ as the Catholic Church has handed down for 2,000 years would be the adherents of the Pope, and thus faithful Catholics would be the Antichrist. One can't be a Christian and be the Antichrist, now can they?
And the love flows both ways; read the Council of Trent.
Quotes specifically, please? The Catholic Church has renounced the harsh rhetoric of those times. Your denomination appears to embrace it, specifically renouncing the idea that calling the Pope the Antichrist was just an historical interpretation of the times, and making it a doctrinal statement. Unless I misunderstand, one is supposed to accept all the doctrine of your denomination to belong, right?
Smearing JFK for his faith was wrong and he proved it by governing
without any "Vatican influence" as those who smeared him would have you
believe.
And of all the Catholics to get elected, it had to be him. An adulterous, philandering "Catholic." Great.
For once I would like to see a faithful Catholic get elected... like Rick Santorum!Does anyone truly believe Mitt Romney woud move the capital to
Salt Lake City? Richard Nixon with his Quaker background prosecuted a
war. Why would Michelle Bachmann bomb the Vatican?
Bomb the Vatican? Where in the world did you come up with that??
;)
edit: dang smilies won't work!
7/16/2011 9:17:18 AM
It was an overstretch to make a point. 
When she first ran for Congress there was a smear campaign run against her by a group that opposed her "pro-life" position. Trying to split the conservative Catholic pro-life voters from her, they dredged up the "Antichrist" issue. It almost cost her the election. Rather than take the JFK approach and confronting those who would smear, she has chosen to abandon her church this time.
Unless there is something in its doctrine that conflicts with the Constitution, a candidate's religion SHOULD be a nonissue. (Hmmmm, it appears the Constitution already beat me to it...) My frustration is with anyone who would abandon his/her religious or other principles simply because they are..."inconvenient". No backbone.
When she first ran for Congress there was a smear campaign run against her by a group that opposed her "pro-life" position. Trying to split the conservative Catholic pro-life voters from her, they dredged up the "Antichrist" issue. It almost cost her the election. Rather than take the JFK approach and confronting those who would smear, she has chosen to abandon her church this time.
Unless there is something in its doctrine that conflicts with the Constitution, a candidate's religion SHOULD be a nonissue. (Hmmmm, it appears the Constitution already beat me to it...) My frustration is with anyone who would abandon his/her religious or other principles simply because they are..."inconvenient". No backbone.
7/16/2011 10:00:42 AM
Apparently she's found that anti-Catholicism isn't a great selling point once you venture out of the Bible Belt.
Babbling on about the threat posed by 'papists' and the calumnies of the Council of Trent don't make you seem particularly trustworthy to much of America.
It can be a shocking relevation to someone who has spent their life immersed in Protestant Fundamentalism, but there you go.
Babbling on about the threat posed by 'papists' and the calumnies of the Council of Trent don't make you seem particularly trustworthy to much of America.
It can be a shocking relevation to someone who has spent their life immersed in Protestant Fundamentalism, but there you go.
7/16/2011 10:04:48 AM
Obviously she is no Martin Luther.
The odd thing here is that Luther was an avid student of St Augustine and would most likely be mortified by much of modern American Protestant Fundamentalism.
7/16/2011 12:16:37 PM
Originally Posted By paris-dakar:
Apparently she's found that anti-Catholicism isn't a great selling point once you venture out of the Bible Belt.
Babbling on about the threat posed by 'papists' and the calumnies of the Council of Trent don't make you seem particularly trustworthy to much of America.
It can be a shocking relevation to someone who has spent their life immersed in Protestant Fundamentalism, but there you go.
Apparently she's found that anti-Catholicism isn't a great selling point once you venture out of the Bible Belt.
Babbling on about the threat posed by 'papists' and the calumnies of the Council of Trent don't make you seem particularly trustworthy to much of America.
It can be a shocking relevation to someone who has spent their life immersed in Protestant Fundamentalism, but there you go.
There you go. This is something she hasn't done. I've only gone as far as I did to point out that that there ARE differences and that each of the denominations defend their doctrine. Think about it; why would you have it if you won't defend it? Trust me when I tell you that we don't hold secret meetings where we strap on goat leggings and bash the Pope. However, if asked we will defend our doctrine. We're not anti-Catholic, we're anti false teaching and doctrine, regardless of who preaches it. Now for the point of discussion here I will happily concede that we have different ideas of just exactly what is false teaching and doctrine.
Originally Posted By paris-dakar:
The odd thing here is that Luther was an avid student of St Augustine and would most likely be mortified by much of modern American Protestant Fundamentalism.
The odd thing here is that Luther was an avid student of St Augustine and would most likely be mortified by much of modern American Protestant Fundamentalism.
Agreed. All he did was try to "fix" what he found was wrong with Catholic theology. Starting a new denomination was not his idea. He (and we confessional Lutherans) had no argument with much of the doctrine. He WAS mortified by what he saw going on by some of those around him THEN. I personally get an ironic kick out of some of the modern day "reformers" who think he didn't go "far enough" with his reforms and then (mis)quote him to further their own doctrine.
7/16/2011 12:25:06 PM
As we see it, the clearly consistent pattern we find in the Bible is the privilege and responsibility to appraise all religious views that we come into contact with and then to respond to those views by speaking the truth in love. When we find that the religious views of others are in agreement with the Bible message (especially when they are centered in Christ and his work, faithfully pointing sinners to God's gracious pardon of sinners based totally on Christ's work), then we rejoice and affirm the truth. However, when we find that the religious views of others involve departures or denials of Bible truths, we are to expose the errors as errors and lovingly warn the people of the dangers of falsehood. And when we examine and discover that someone's religious views are a combination of truth and error, we affirm and rejoice in the truth but then identify and expose the error at the same time. The goal is always to strive, in love, to serve the religious needs of others by pointing them to God's truth and warning them against departures from God's truth.
Mockery and ridicule do not build people up and do not communicate love. Of course we judge religious teachings in the sense that we appraise them and approve of them (to the degree that they faithfully echo what the Bible teaches) or reject them (to the degree that they deny or depart from Bible truth). God urges to "judge" doctrine and religious practice in that sense. But we are not to "judge" lovelessly or hypocritically, with an attitude of superiority or arrogance, thinking that we are better people. We desire to give God glory and serve souls, not to glorify ourselves at the expense of others or somehow to give the impression that we are more worthy than others. Let us speak the truth in love and in that way serve fellow sinners by pointing them to the gracious Lord who through Christ has provided salvation for us all. This isn't anti-Catholicism or anti-Mormonism or anti-anything. The motivation is pro-truth.
Mockery and ridicule do not build people up and do not communicate love. Of course we judge religious teachings in the sense that we appraise them and approve of them (to the degree that they faithfully echo what the Bible teaches) or reject them (to the degree that they deny or depart from Bible truth). God urges to "judge" doctrine and religious practice in that sense. But we are not to "judge" lovelessly or hypocritically, with an attitude of superiority or arrogance, thinking that we are better people. We desire to give God glory and serve souls, not to glorify ourselves at the expense of others or somehow to give the impression that we are more worthy than others. Let us speak the truth in love and in that way serve fellow sinners by pointing them to the gracious Lord who through Christ has provided salvation for us all. This isn't anti-Catholicism or anti-Mormonism or anti-anything. The motivation is pro-truth.
7/16/2011 12:33:14 PM
EDITED - Serious, respectful, and on-topic only in this forum, please. HS
7/16/2011 12:39:38 PM
Originally Posted By WindKnot1-1:
It was an overstretch to make a point. When she first ran for Congress there was a smear campaign run against her by a group that opposed her "pro-life" position. Trying to split the conservative Catholic pro-life voters from her, they dredged up the "Antichrist" issue. It almost cost her the election. Rather than take the JFK approach and confronting those who would smear, she has chosen to abandon her church this time.
Unless there is something in its doctrine that conflicts with the Constitution, a candidate's religion SHOULD be a nonissue. (Hmmmm, it appears the Constitution already beat me to it...) My frustration is with anyone who would abandon his/her religious or other principles simply because they are..."inconvenient". No backbone.
It was an overstretch to make a point.
When she first ran for Congress there was a smear campaign run against her by a group that opposed her "pro-life" position. Trying to split the conservative Catholic pro-life voters from her, they dredged up the "Antichrist" issue. It almost cost her the election. Rather than take the JFK approach and confronting those who would smear, she has chosen to abandon her church this time.
Unless there is something in its doctrine that conflicts with the Constitution, a candidate's religion SHOULD be a nonissue. (Hmmmm, it appears the Constitution already beat me to it...) My frustration is with anyone who would abandon his/her religious or other principles simply because they are..."inconvenient". No backbone.
I generally come out against Bachman in most of these threads, but "abandoning" such a church was the right thing to do. Do you think Obama would have been wrong to "abandon" Rev Wright for his lunacy, or was he being "principled" by staying there all those years?
7/16/2011 1:01:24 PM
Why? We don't preach hate. We don't condemn America either.
Back to the Council of Trent example; if you read it you could consider it a hate piece against Protestantism of any sort. The language is quite strong. We're called an anathema. Look up that word and get back to me on it. Should we consider Catholicism a religion of hate? I would argue no, Trent is a defense and a confession of Catholic theology. The same holds true for the Augsburg Confession. If one is hate, so is the other.
Back to the Council of Trent example; if you read it you could consider it a hate piece against Protestantism of any sort. The language is quite strong. We're called an anathema. Look up that word and get back to me on it. Should we consider Catholicism a religion of hate? I would argue no, Trent is a defense and a confession of Catholic theology. The same holds true for the Augsburg Confession. If one is hate, so is the other.
7/16/2011 1:10:00 PM
Originally Posted By paris-dakar:
Apparently she's found that anti-Catholicism isn't a great selling point once you venture out of the Bible Belt.
Babbling on about the threat posed by 'papists' and the calumnies of the Council of Trent don't make you seem particularly trustworthy to much of America.
It can be a shocking relevation to someone who has spent their life immersed in Protestant Fundamentalism, but there you go.
Apparently she's found that anti-Catholicism isn't a great selling point once you venture out of the Bible Belt.
Babbling on about the threat posed by 'papists' and the calumnies of the Council of Trent don't make you seem particularly trustworthy to much of America.
It can be a shocking relevation to someone who has spent their life immersed in Protestant Fundamentalism, but there you go.
Minnesota isn't exactly the bible belt.
7/16/2011 1:12:45 PM
Originally Posted By WindKnot1-1:
Apparently she'd rather be President than hold true to her faith.
Apparently she'd rather be President than hold true to her faith.
Oh please.
She quit THAT church. Doesn't mean she won't go to church anymore.
give it up.
7/16/2011 1:15:35 PM
Originally Posted By DigDug:
The left is scared to death of Bachmann. It's pretty obvious.
The left is scared to death of Bachmann. It's pretty obvious.
I think she can weather what they dish out. the woman has gumption.
The big question is whether the sheeple will allow the media to pick another president for them, or not.
7/16/2011 1:20:37 PM
Originally Posted By KnuckleSandwich:
This all seems odd to me. You have to formally quit a church?
This all seems odd to me. You have to formally quit a church?
You don't have to, but most with churches if you placed membership (so as to participate in helping, ie serve communion etc) then is courteous to let them know you are not going to be a member anymore.
7/16/2011 1:23:37 PM
EDITED - Serious, respectful, and on-topic only in this forum, please. HS
7/16/2011 1:32:47 PM
Originally Posted By WindKnot1-1:
It was an overstretch to make a point. When she first ran for Congress there was a smear campaign run against her by a group that opposed her "pro-life" position. Trying to split the conservative Catholic pro-life voters from her, they dredged up the "Antichrist" issue. It almost cost her the election. Rather than take the JFK approach and confronting those who would smear, she has chosen to abandon her church this time.
It was an overstretch to make a point.
When she first ran for Congress there was a smear campaign run against her by a group that opposed her "pro-life" position. Trying to split the conservative Catholic pro-life voters from her, they dredged up the "Antichrist" issue. It almost cost her the election. Rather than take the JFK approach and confronting those who would smear, she has chosen to abandon her church this time.Ah, I wasn't aware of that. The only reference I was able to find online about bombing the Vatican and Bachmann was a comment on an article by some anti-war activist who was unhappy with BHO, saying that Bachmann and Palin are in the pocket of the war hawks, and Obama would "bomb the Vatican if the elites told him to." That's why I was confused.
Unless there is something in its doctrine that conflicts with the Constitution, a candidate's religion SHOULD be a nonissue. (Hmmmm, it appears the Constitution already beat me to it...)
Not necessarily. A person's religion can tell a great deal about their worldview if they hold to their religion's doctrine, and that can indeed be an issue for the voters. Should it automatically preclude them from holding office? No. Should the voters know? Yes, so they can make up their minds and vote accordingly.
My frustration is with anyone who would abandon his/her religious or other principles simply because they are..."inconvenient". No backbone.
Now THAT deserves an Amen! I can name a long list of "Catholic" politicians who have done just that in practice but haven't taken the step to do it formally. Of course, for all you know, she's been struggling with some beliefs of WELS for a while and has finally decided to leave. She and her husband have been attending a "non-denominational" denomination for a while now, from what I read.7/16/2011 1:38:27 PM
EDITED - Serious, respectful, and on-topic only in this forum, please. HS
7/16/2011 1:51:39 PM
Originally Posted By WindKnot1-1:
Why? We don't preach hate. We don't condemn America either.
Back to the Council of Trent example; if you read it you could consider it a hate piece against Protestantism of any sort. The language is quite strong. We're called an anathema. Look up that word and get back to me on it. Should we consider Catholicism a religion of hate? I would argue no, Trent is a defense and a confession of Catholic theology. The same holds true for the Augsburg Confession. If one is hate, so is the other.
Why? We don't preach hate. We don't condemn America either.
Back to the Council of Trent example; if you read it you could consider it a hate piece against Protestantism of any sort. The language is quite strong. We're called an anathema. Look up that word and get back to me on it. Should we consider Catholicism a religion of hate? I would argue no, Trent is a defense and a confession of Catholic theology. The same holds true for the Augsburg Confession. If one is hate, so is the other.
Yes, let's look at that word "anathema," as –– in the words of Inigo Montoya: "I do not think that words means what you think it means." As used in Trent, it was a judicial decree saying that those who espoused the views that were condemned were to be cut off from the sacraments. It was NOT a condemnation of eternal punishment, a declaration that a person was going to hell, and it wasn't even applied to all Protestants (just certain Catholic offenders who made a pretense of staying in the Catholic community while rejecting Catholic teaching).
Here's a good article on what the Church means by Anathema
A couple excerpts:
Of special interest are Paul’s ecclesiastical uses of anathema—Galatians
1:8–9 and 1 Corinthians 16:22—in which Paul says that if a person is
guilty of certain faults then "let him be anathema." Minimally, this
directed the Christian community to hold the offender in a certain
regard. This involved his exclusion from fellowship, as clearly must be
done in the case of a person preaching a false gospel. Such
exclusion—for a variety of offenses—is attested to elsewhere in the New
Testament (e.g., Matt 18:15–18), and often spoken of as "handing [the
offender] over to Satan" so that he might suffer without the Church’s
protection and thus be driven to repentance (1 Cor. 5; 2 Cor. 2:5–11;
Tit. 3:10).
Later in Church history, this exclusion to provoke repentance received the name "excommunication." Originally, the Church did not differentiate between excommunication and anathema, which is why ecumenical councils have traditionally constructed their dogmatic canons using the formula "If anyone says . . . let him be anathema," meaning that anyone teaching the condemned proposition is to be anathematized or cut off from Christian society.
Later in Church history, this exclusion to provoke repentance received the name "excommunication." Originally, the Church did not differentiate between excommunication and anathema, which is why ecumenical councils have traditionally constructed their dogmatic canons using the formula "If anyone says . . . let him be anathema," meaning that anyone teaching the condemned proposition is to be anathematized or cut off from Christian society.
Because the penalty has been abolished, a word should be said about the
status of the conciliar canons that employed this penalty. In addition
to prescribing the imposition of a juridical penalty, the phrase anathema sit
("let him be anathema") also came to be one of the phrases that the
Church traditionally has used to issue doctrinal definitions.
Catholic scholars have long recognized that when an ecumenical council applies this phrase to a doctrinal matter, then the matter is settled infallibly. (If a council applied the phrase to a disciplinary matter, then the matter would not be settled infallibly, since only matters of doctrine, not discipline, are subject to doctrinal definition.)
Thus, when Trent and other ecumenical councils employed anathema sit in regard to doctrinal matters, not only was a judicial penalty prescribed but a doctrinal definition was also made. Today, the judicial penalty may be gone, but the doctrinal definition remains. Everything that was infallibly decided by these councils is still infallibly settled.
So, when Luther and others were declared anathema, the judicial decree (similar to a civil court decree) declared them cut off from the sacraments, and the intent was to get them to repent of their errors. It was NOT a condemnation to hell.Catholic scholars have long recognized that when an ecumenical council applies this phrase to a doctrinal matter, then the matter is settled infallibly. (If a council applied the phrase to a disciplinary matter, then the matter would not be settled infallibly, since only matters of doctrine, not discipline, are subject to doctrinal definition.)
Thus, when Trent and other ecumenical councils employed anathema sit in regard to doctrinal matters, not only was a judicial penalty prescribed but a doctrinal definition was also made. Today, the judicial penalty may be gone, but the doctrinal definition remains. Everything that was infallibly decided by these councils is still infallibly settled.
7/16/2011 2:10:27 PM
EDITED - Serious, respectful, and on-topic only in this forum, please. HS
7/16/2011 2:17:04 PM
EDITED - Serious, respectful, and on-topic only in this forum, please. HS
7/16/2011 2:29:06 PM
Originally Posted By _DR:
You don't have to, but most with churches if you placed membership (so as to participate in helping, ie serve communion etc) then is courteous to let them know you are not going to be a member anymore.
Originally Posted By KnuckleSandwich:
This all seems odd to me. You have to formally quit a church?
This all seems odd to me. You have to formally quit a church?
You don't have to, but most with churches if you placed membership (so as to participate in helping, ie serve communion etc) then is courteous to let them know you are not going to be a member anymore.
Originally Posted By _DR:
Oh please.
She quit THAT church. Doesn't mean she won't go to church anymore.
give it up.
Oh please.
She quit THAT church. Doesn't mean she won't go to church anymore.
give it up.
In the Lutheran Church it goes deeper than just being on the roster. To become a communicant Lutheran you must publicly declare and confess your faith according to our doctrine. Much like the Catholic Church, we practice a closed communion. That means that we all agree that it is a sacrament and not just an ordinance. We believe we receive something from God from participating in it. We, like Catholics believe that Christ is present in the elements. We confess that and we believe that. Our children and prospective members attend catechism classes so that they understand completely be fore they confess their faith. This differs from reformed denominations. So for us, it's NOT "one church is as good as another". Changing churches is big for us. (and, presumably, her.)
7/16/2011 4:10:48 PM
Originally Posted By WindKnot1-1:
Agreed. All he did was try to "fix" what he found was wrong with Catholic theology. Starting a new denomination was not his idea. He (and we confessional Lutherans) had no argument with much of the doctrine. He WAS mortified by what he saw going on by some of those around him THEN. I personally get an ironic kick out of some of the modern day "reformers" who think he didn't go "far enough" with his reforms and then (mis)quote him to further their own doctrine.
Originally Posted By paris-dakar:
The odd thing here is that Luther was an avid student of St Augustine and would most likely be mortified by much of modern American Protestant Fundamentalism.
The odd thing here is that Luther was an avid student of St Augustine and would most likely be mortified by much of modern American Protestant Fundamentalism.
Agreed. All he did was try to "fix" what he found was wrong with Catholic theology. Starting a new denomination was not his idea. He (and we confessional Lutherans) had no argument with much of the doctrine. He WAS mortified by what he saw going on by some of those around him THEN. I personally get an ironic kick out of some of the modern day "reformers" who think he didn't go "far enough" with his reforms and then (mis)quote him to further their own doctrine.
A big part of Luther's motivation was a protest against the role Thomism began to take on in Catholic Theology. Unfortunate and misguided IMO, since Aquinas was one of the greatest intellectuals in Western thought.
Protestants don't do themselves any great service when they cut themselves off from the Latin or Greek Doctors of the Church. Luther should have remained inside the Church and allowed his ideas to stand the test of time. That's what Aquinas did - some of his writings were held to be anathema in the years immediately after his death.
7/16/2011 4:42:18 PM
Do you forget Luther was excommunicated and a price was put on his head? The 95 theses were nailed to the door for discussion, not independence. He did try.
7/16/2011 5:55:21 PM
Originally Posted By WindKnot1-1:
In the Lutheran Church it goes deeper than just being on the roster. To become a communicant Lutheran you must publicly declare and confess your faith according to our doctrine. Much like the Catholic Church, we practice a closed communion. That means that we all agree that it is a sacrament and not just an ordinance. We believe we receive something from God from participating in it. We, like Catholics believe that Christ is present in the elements. We confess that and we believe that. Our children and prospective members attend catechism classes so that they understand completely be fore they confess their faith. This differs from reformed denominations. So for us, it's NOT "one church is as good as another". Changing churches is big for us. (and, presumably, her.)
Originally Posted By _DR:
You don't have to, but most with churches if you placed membership (so as to participate in helping, ie serve communion etc) then is courteous to let them know you are not going to be a member anymore.
Originally Posted By KnuckleSandwich:
This all seems odd to me. You have to formally quit a church?
This all seems odd to me. You have to formally quit a church?
You don't have to, but most with churches if you placed membership (so as to participate in helping, ie serve communion etc) then is courteous to let them know you are not going to be a member anymore.
Originally Posted By _DR:
Oh please.
She quit THAT church. Doesn't mean she won't go to church anymore.
give it up.
Oh please.
She quit THAT church. Doesn't mean she won't go to church anymore.
give it up.
In the Lutheran Church it goes deeper than just being on the roster. To become a communicant Lutheran you must publicly declare and confess your faith according to our doctrine. Much like the Catholic Church, we practice a closed communion. That means that we all agree that it is a sacrament and not just an ordinance. We believe we receive something from God from participating in it. We, like Catholics believe that Christ is present in the elements. We confess that and we believe that. Our children and prospective members attend catechism classes so that they understand completely be fore they confess their faith. This differs from reformed denominations. So for us, it's NOT "one church is as good as another". Changing churches is big for us. (and, presumably, her.)
What Lutheran denomination do you belong to? There are many.
7/16/2011 6:04:21 PM
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) We're Confessional Lutherans. We are called "Confessional" because we will gladly share (confess) our Lutheran doctrine with Biblical justification. What We Believe This is the Synod Bachmann left.
7/16/2011 6:12:14 PM
The following is part of the Papal Encyclical excommunicating Luther and his adherents. It also authorizes the Pope's adherents to deprive Luther and his adherents of possessions.
The death penalty which hung over Luther's head was issued in a separate decree by the Roman Catholic, Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor.
The Pope also declares that his adherents must call us "Lutherans", not Protestants. So, please do so.
The Pope commands his followers to call us "Lutherans"
Preamble
Through the power given him from God, the Roman Pontiff has been appointed to administer spiritual and temporal punishments as each case severally deserves. The purpose of this is the repression of the wicked designs of misguided men [Luther and his adherents, and] …to take severe measures against such men and their followers, and by multiplying punitive measures and by other suitable remedies to see to it that these same overbearing men, devoted as they are to purposes of evil, along with their adherents, should not deceive the multitude of the simple by their lies and their deceitful devices, nor drag them along to share their own error and ruination, contaminating them with what amounts to a contagious disease….
III. Our purpose is that such men [Luther’s adherents] should rightfully be ranked with Martin and other accursed heretics and excommunicates, and that even as they have ranged themselves with the obstinacy in sinning of the said Martin, they shall likewise share his punishments and his name, by bearing with them everywhere the title "Lutheran" and the punishments it incurs.
…On all these we decree the sentences of excommunication, of anathema, of our perpetual condemnation and interdict; of privation of dignities, honours and property on them and their descendants, and of declared unfitness for such possessions; of the confiscation of their goods and of the crime of treason; and these and the other sentences, censures and punishments which are inflicted by canon law on heretics and are set out in our aforesaid missive, we decree to have fallen on all these men to their damnation.
V We would make known to all the small store that Martin, his followers and the other rebels have set on God and his Church by their obstinate and shameless temerity. We would protect the herd from one infectious animal, lest its infection spread to the healthy ones. Hence we lay the following injunction on each and every [Roman Catholic with authority] …if so required in the execution of these presents, publicly announce and cause to be announced by others in their churches, that this same Martin and the rest are excommunicate, accursed, condemned, heretics, hardened, interdicted, deprived of possessions and incapable of owning them, and so listed in the enforcement of these presents. …The faithful Christians, one and all, shall be enjoined strictly to shun these men.
[All Roman Catholic leaders] shall not keep silence like dumb dogs that cannot bark, but incessantly cry and lift up their voice, preaching and causing to be preached the word of God and the truth of the Catholic faith against the damnable articles and heretics aforesaid.
X No one whatsoever may infringe this our written decision, declaration, precept, injunction, assignation, will, decree; or rashly contravene it. Should anyone dare to attempt such a thing, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
Written at St. Peter's, Rome, on the 3rd January 1521, during the eighth year of our pontificate.
The death penalty which hung over Luther's head was issued in a separate decree by the Roman Catholic, Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor.
The Pope also declares that his adherents must call us "Lutherans", not Protestants. So, please do so.
The Pope commands his followers to call us "Lutherans"
Decet Romanum Pontificem
Papal Bull on the Condemnation and Excommunication of Martin Luther, the Heretic, and his Followers, January 3, 1521.
Papal Bull on the Condemnation and Excommunication of Martin Luther, the Heretic, and his Followers, January 3, 1521.
Preamble
Through the power given him from God, the Roman Pontiff has been appointed to administer spiritual and temporal punishments as each case severally deserves. The purpose of this is the repression of the wicked designs of misguided men [Luther and his adherents, and] …to take severe measures against such men and their followers, and by multiplying punitive measures and by other suitable remedies to see to it that these same overbearing men, devoted as they are to purposes of evil, along with their adherents, should not deceive the multitude of the simple by their lies and their deceitful devices, nor drag them along to share their own error and ruination, contaminating them with what amounts to a contagious disease….
III. Our purpose is that such men [Luther’s adherents] should rightfully be ranked with Martin and other accursed heretics and excommunicates, and that even as they have ranged themselves with the obstinacy in sinning of the said Martin, they shall likewise share his punishments and his name, by bearing with them everywhere the title "Lutheran" and the punishments it incurs.
…On all these we decree the sentences of excommunication, of anathema, of our perpetual condemnation and interdict; of privation of dignities, honours and property on them and their descendants, and of declared unfitness for such possessions; of the confiscation of their goods and of the crime of treason; and these and the other sentences, censures and punishments which are inflicted by canon law on heretics and are set out in our aforesaid missive, we decree to have fallen on all these men to their damnation.
V We would make known to all the small store that Martin, his followers and the other rebels have set on God and his Church by their obstinate and shameless temerity. We would protect the herd from one infectious animal, lest its infection spread to the healthy ones. Hence we lay the following injunction on each and every [Roman Catholic with authority] …if so required in the execution of these presents, publicly announce and cause to be announced by others in their churches, that this same Martin and the rest are excommunicate, accursed, condemned, heretics, hardened, interdicted, deprived of possessions and incapable of owning them, and so listed in the enforcement of these presents. …The faithful Christians, one and all, shall be enjoined strictly to shun these men.
[All Roman Catholic leaders] shall not keep silence like dumb dogs that cannot bark, but incessantly cry and lift up their voice, preaching and causing to be preached the word of God and the truth of the Catholic faith against the damnable articles and heretics aforesaid.
X No one whatsoever may infringe this our written decision, declaration, precept, injunction, assignation, will, decree; or rashly contravene it. Should anyone dare to attempt such a thing, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
Written at St. Peter's, Rome, on the 3rd January 1521, during the eighth year of our pontificate.
7/16/2011 6:13:17 PM
Originally Posted By WindKnot1-1:
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) We're Confessional Lutherans. We are called "Confessional" because we will gladly share (confess) our Lutheran doctrine with Biblical justification. What We Believe This is the Synod Bachmann left.
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) We're Confessional Lutherans. We are called "Confessional" because we will gladly share (confess) our Lutheran doctrine with Biblical justification. What We Believe This is the Synod Bachmann left.
Never heard of the WELS before. Sorry. Sounds kind of fringe to me, but I am more familiar with the ELCA.
7/16/2011 7:03:57 PM
Originally Posted By viator:
The Pope also declares that his adherents must call us "Lutherans", not Protestants. So, please do so.
'Lutherans" as opposed to "Catholics" because there were no other Protestants at the time. It was no different than the followers of Arius or Nestorius, or Marcion, etc. being called "Arians""Nestorians" or "Marcionites" instead of "Catholics". As time went on and more folks rebelled against the Church (Calvin, Zwingli, etc.), "Protestant" became the blanket term for those who had "protested" against the Church.The Pope also declares that his adherents must call us "Lutherans", not Protestants. So, please do so.
All Lutherans are Protestants, but not all Protestants are Lutherans, so when speaking of those Christians who oppose the Catholic Church in a general sense, Protestant is the correct term. When speaking of a specific denomination then Baptist, Lutheran, Calvinist/Presbyterian, Methodist, etc. is more accurate.
7/16/2011 8:49:43 PM
Originally Posted By DigDug:
Never heard of the WELS before. Sorry. Sounds kind of fringe to me, but I am more familiar with the ELCA.
Originally Posted By WindKnot1-1:
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) We're Confessional Lutherans. We are called "Confessional" because we will gladly share (confess) our Lutheran doctrine with Biblical justification. What We Believe This is the Synod Bachmann left.
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) We're Confessional Lutherans. We are called "Confessional" because we will gladly share (confess) our Lutheran doctrine with Biblical justification. What We Believe This is the Synod Bachmann left.
Never heard of the WELS before. Sorry. Sounds kind of fringe to me, but I am more familiar with the ELCA.
The largest synod is indeed ELCA. The rest of the "Big 3" are the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) and Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Lutheran Synod. (WELS). WELS is hardly "fringe". LCMS and WELS are both Confessional Lutheran synods; they hold to the Formula of Concord (The Augsburg Confessions, Smalcald Articles, Luther's Large & Small Catechisms, & more) as Biblically inspired without question. ELCA does not. Together the three comprise over 95% of Lutherans in America. ELCA is suffering from a split in its membership right now because of its liberal (unbiblical) doctrine ranging from the origins of Communion to allowing practicing gays in the clergy. Confessional Lutherans wonder frankly, how they can call themselves "Lutheran" if they don't hold to all his tenets. There are approximately 100 Lutheran synods in America ranging in all kinds of sizes.
7/16/2011 9:05:33 PM
Originally Posted By WindKnot1-1:
The largest synod is indeed ELCA. The rest of the "Big 3" are the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) and Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Lutheran Synod. (WELS). WELS is hardly "fringe". LCMS and WELS are both Confessional Lutheran synods; they hold to the Formula of Concord (The Augsburg Confessions, Smalcald Articles, Luther's Large & Small Catechisms, & more) as Biblically inspired without question. ELCA does not. Together the three comprise over 95% of Lutherans in America. ELCA is suffering from a split in its membership right now because of its liberal (unbiblical) doctrine ranging from the origins of Communion to allowing practicing gays in the clergy. Confessional Lutherans wonder frankly, how they can call themselves "Lutheran" if they don't hold to all his tenets. There are approximately 100 Lutheran synods in America ranging in all kinds of sizes.
Originally Posted By DigDug:
Never heard of the WELS before. Sorry. Sounds kind of fringe to me, but I am more familiar with the ELCA.
Originally Posted By WindKnot1-1:
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) We're Confessional Lutherans. We are called "Confessional" because we will gladly share (confess) our Lutheran doctrine with Biblical justification. What We Believe This is the Synod Bachmann left.
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) We're Confessional Lutherans. We are called "Confessional" because we will gladly share (confess) our Lutheran doctrine with Biblical justification. What We Believe This is the Synod Bachmann left.
Never heard of the WELS before. Sorry. Sounds kind of fringe to me, but I am more familiar with the ELCA.
The largest synod is indeed ELCA. The rest of the "Big 3" are the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) and Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Lutheran Synod. (WELS). WELS is hardly "fringe". LCMS and WELS are both Confessional Lutheran synods; they hold to the Formula of Concord (The Augsburg Confessions, Smalcald Articles, Luther's Large & Small Catechisms, & more) as Biblically inspired without question. ELCA does not. Together the three comprise over 95% of Lutherans in America. ELCA is suffering from a split in its membership right now because of its liberal (unbiblical) doctrine ranging from the origins of Communion to allowing practicing gays in the clergy. Confessional Lutherans wonder frankly, how they can call themselves "Lutheran" if they don't hold to all his tenets. There are approximately 100 Lutheran synods in America ranging in all kinds of sizes.
In that case I am glad Michelle Bachmann left your church.
My Sister and Brother-in-Law are ELCA missionaries in Africa. I'll let them know you disapprove of their faith. Have a nice day.
7/16/2011 9:36:21 PM
Originally Posted By loonybin:
All Lutherans are Protestants, but not all Protestants are Lutherans, so when speaking of those Christians who oppose the Catholic Church in a general sense, Protestant is the correct term. When speaking of a specific denomination then Baptist, Lutheran, Calvinist/Presbyterian, Methodist, etc. is more accurate.
Originally Posted By viator:
The Pope also declares that his adherents must call us "Lutherans", not Protestants. So, please do so.
'Lutherans" as opposed to "Catholics" because there were no other Protestants at the time. It was no different than the followers of Arius or Nestorius, or Marcion, etc. being called "Arians""Nestorians" or "Marcionites" instead of "Catholics". As time went on and more folks rebelled against the Church (Calvin, Zwingli, etc.), "Protestant" became the blanket term for those who had "protested" against the Church.
The Pope also declares that his adherents must call us "Lutherans", not Protestants. So, please do so.
All Lutherans are Protestants, but not all Protestants are Lutherans, so when speaking of those Christians who oppose the Catholic Church in a general sense, Protestant is the correct term. When speaking of a specific denomination then Baptist, Lutheran, Calvinist/Presbyterian, Methodist, etc. is more accurate.
+1
The three basic categories of Christianity are Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant.
I actually don't have too much issue with Lutheranism, if you think about it the European varieties are actually closer to Catholicism in their beliefs than they are to American Protestant groups like Baptists, Pentacostals, CoC, et al.
At least Lutherans don't try to simultaneously reject the Eucharist and proclaim the ultimate authority of Scripture.
7/16/2011 11:08:39 PM
My Sister and Brother-in-Law are ELCA missionaries in Africa. I'll let them know you disapprove of their faith. Have a nice day.
And I will pray for their continued safety until they return home. In the meantime if you woould like to PM me their address, I'd be happy to mail them a paperback of the Book of Concord containing the Lutheran Confessions that they may compare with the Bible.
8/10/2011 3:25:10 AM
Well....I see this as she and her husband decided to change the denomination the belonged to. Anyone stating that this religion or that is evil, without proof, I would have problems with. I know many good Catholics that I would be proud to stand next to as well as Lutherans. Would I be a signed member? Not if they were advocating my religious beliefs as evil. This has nothing at all to do with her beliefs. It may be she did not agree with what they were teaching.
Politics aside, I would not belong to any church that openly condemned any organization without proof. Even then, I would defer judgment where it belongs. I know that there are those that feel the need to defend their Lutheran Organizational Leadership but bigoted comments have no place in doctrine. I know Martin Luther had problems with the Papacy at the time and with good reason- there were many that were corrupt. This is something we are to ward against. Repentant members of any organization are to be supported.
As for the 'gay' comments....I know many and have a few relatives that are gay. I love them. I hate their sin. This is what we were taught by Christ as example and rule. Nothing else. If a ministry and assistance to be 'straight' and be a follower of Christ; indeed, "take up they cross and follow Me"....then good for him. This is worthwhile and not for your judgment or your reproach or insinuation. Christ ate and drank with sinners and those considered to be 'unclean' and preached to them in their homes. This is our example.
Politics aside, I would not belong to any church that openly condemned any organization without proof. Even then, I would defer judgment where it belongs. I know that there are those that feel the need to defend their Lutheran Organizational Leadership but bigoted comments have no place in doctrine. I know Martin Luther had problems with the Papacy at the time and with good reason- there were many that were corrupt. This is something we are to ward against. Repentant members of any organization are to be supported.
As for the 'gay' comments....I know many and have a few relatives that are gay. I love them. I hate their sin. This is what we were taught by Christ as example and rule. Nothing else. If a ministry and assistance to be 'straight' and be a follower of Christ; indeed, "take up they cross and follow Me"....then good for him. This is worthwhile and not for your judgment or your reproach or insinuation. Christ ate and drank with sinners and those considered to be 'unclean' and preached to them in their homes. This is our example.
8/10/2011 11:29:58 AM
We do have Scripture to back our doctrine.
As an aside, following is our Synod comment on this issue:
By Scripture alone
Recent news reports have thrust the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) into the middle of a presidential campaign. What has catapulted this relatively small Lutheran church body into the media spotlight is the fact that, until recently, presidential candidate Michele Bachmann had held membership in a WELS congregation.
As often happens in controversies both religious and political, people tend to view issues through the prism of their individual perspectives and beliefs. That often results in obscured facts and distortions of the truth. The discussion of the WELS position on the Antichrist is a perfect example of this.
With 390,000 members, WELS is the third largest of the Lutheran churches in the United States. It is often described, properly so, as the “most theologically conservative” of the three.
WELS does hold to the historic Lutheran position that the Roman Catholic papacy fits the biblical characteristics of the Antichrist. We do this without reservation and with no apologies. We believe that our doctrines cannot be tempered by political correctness or modified to align them with changing culture or public opinion.
WELS draws all of its teachings from the Bible. “By Scripture alone” was one of the major themes of the Lutheran Reformation, and WELS has not retreated from that core belief. WELS is also a “confessional” Lutheran church, which means that we hold to the teachings of the Lutheran Confessions because they are a clear and accurate articulation of biblical truth. These confessional writings, produced at the time of the Reformation and in the decades that followed, identified the fundamental ways in which the Roman Catholic Church had departed from the teachings of the Bible. Even though Martin Luther had sought only to reform his church and return it to the correct teachings of Scripture, he was excommunicated by Rome and targeted for death because of his beliefs. The birth of the Lutheran church was not Luther’s preference; it was made necessary by the decisions of the Roman Catholic Church itself.
Luther and the Lutheran Confessions identified the Roman Catholic papacy as the Antichrist for three main reasons: First, the papacy claimed to speak with an authority—even infallibility—that was equal to or surpassing the Word of God itself. By doing so, it put itself in a position of being “anti” or “in place of” Christ. Second, the papacy claimed that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church, making membership in a human organization a condition for salvation; finally, in emphasizing that faith and obedience are necessary for salvation, the papacy undermined the very heart and center of the biblical teaching that salvation is by God’s grace alone and comes to individuals through faith in Christ alone. In holding to each of these teachings, the Roman Catholic papacy placed itself in clear opposition to the foundation of the Christian faith, and therefore in opposition to Christ himself.
Although the Roman Catholic Church may have softened the way in which it refers to these doctrines, it has never repudiated or corrected them.
While WELS continues to see the characteristics of the Antichrist in the Roman Catholic papacy, it is wrong and dishonest to portray this belief as stemming from anti-Catholic bigotry. We do have strong convictions, and we identify what we believe are teachings that depart from the Word of God. But we hold no animosity toward Christians who hold the Roman Catholic faith, and we respect the right of people to hold beliefs different from ours even as we point out the error. Furthermore, we rejoice that even in the Roman Catholic Church, where we believe that the gospel has been distorted, there are many Catholics who hold to a simple faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior and who will ultimately be saved. Testifying to the errors that still exist in Catholic doctrine is itself an expression of love; remaining silent or glossing over doctrinal differences would express the opposite.
Media reports have portrayed the WELS position on the Antichrist to be a prominent or even signature doctrine in our church. Certainly we do not deny this teaching or attempt to hide it. At the same time, it is not a topic of daily discussion or a regular theme in Sunday sermons. Nor is this a view peculiar to WELS; it has been the historic position of the Lutheran church for almost 500 years—a position still held by confessional Lutheran church bodies around the world.
Michele Bachmann is no longer a member of our church, and we are not in any position to comment on her current religious views. But we can say that her previous membership in our church does not make her guilty of being an “anti-Catholic bigot.” To accuse her—or her former church—of that is patently unfair and wrong.
Serving in Christ,
Mark Schroeder
.
As an aside, following is our Synod comment on this issue:
By Scripture alone
Recent news reports have thrust the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) into the middle of a presidential campaign. What has catapulted this relatively small Lutheran church body into the media spotlight is the fact that, until recently, presidential candidate Michele Bachmann had held membership in a WELS congregation.
As often happens in controversies both religious and political, people tend to view issues through the prism of their individual perspectives and beliefs. That often results in obscured facts and distortions of the truth. The discussion of the WELS position on the Antichrist is a perfect example of this.
With 390,000 members, WELS is the third largest of the Lutheran churches in the United States. It is often described, properly so, as the “most theologically conservative” of the three.
WELS does hold to the historic Lutheran position that the Roman Catholic papacy fits the biblical characteristics of the Antichrist. We do this without reservation and with no apologies. We believe that our doctrines cannot be tempered by political correctness or modified to align them with changing culture or public opinion.
WELS draws all of its teachings from the Bible. “By Scripture alone” was one of the major themes of the Lutheran Reformation, and WELS has not retreated from that core belief. WELS is also a “confessional” Lutheran church, which means that we hold to the teachings of the Lutheran Confessions because they are a clear and accurate articulation of biblical truth. These confessional writings, produced at the time of the Reformation and in the decades that followed, identified the fundamental ways in which the Roman Catholic Church had departed from the teachings of the Bible. Even though Martin Luther had sought only to reform his church and return it to the correct teachings of Scripture, he was excommunicated by Rome and targeted for death because of his beliefs. The birth of the Lutheran church was not Luther’s preference; it was made necessary by the decisions of the Roman Catholic Church itself.
Luther and the Lutheran Confessions identified the Roman Catholic papacy as the Antichrist for three main reasons: First, the papacy claimed to speak with an authority—even infallibility—that was equal to or surpassing the Word of God itself. By doing so, it put itself in a position of being “anti” or “in place of” Christ. Second, the papacy claimed that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church, making membership in a human organization a condition for salvation; finally, in emphasizing that faith and obedience are necessary for salvation, the papacy undermined the very heart and center of the biblical teaching that salvation is by God’s grace alone and comes to individuals through faith in Christ alone. In holding to each of these teachings, the Roman Catholic papacy placed itself in clear opposition to the foundation of the Christian faith, and therefore in opposition to Christ himself.
Although the Roman Catholic Church may have softened the way in which it refers to these doctrines, it has never repudiated or corrected them.
While WELS continues to see the characteristics of the Antichrist in the Roman Catholic papacy, it is wrong and dishonest to portray this belief as stemming from anti-Catholic bigotry. We do have strong convictions, and we identify what we believe are teachings that depart from the Word of God. But we hold no animosity toward Christians who hold the Roman Catholic faith, and we respect the right of people to hold beliefs different from ours even as we point out the error. Furthermore, we rejoice that even in the Roman Catholic Church, where we believe that the gospel has been distorted, there are many Catholics who hold to a simple faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior and who will ultimately be saved. Testifying to the errors that still exist in Catholic doctrine is itself an expression of love; remaining silent or glossing over doctrinal differences would express the opposite.
Media reports have portrayed the WELS position on the Antichrist to be a prominent or even signature doctrine in our church. Certainly we do not deny this teaching or attempt to hide it. At the same time, it is not a topic of daily discussion or a regular theme in Sunday sermons. Nor is this a view peculiar to WELS; it has been the historic position of the Lutheran church for almost 500 years—a position still held by confessional Lutheran church bodies around the world.
Michele Bachmann is no longer a member of our church, and we are not in any position to comment on her current religious views. But we can say that her previous membership in our church does not make her guilty of being an “anti-Catholic bigot.” To accuse her—or her former church—of that is patently unfair and wrong.
Serving in Christ,
Mark Schroeder
.
8/10/2011 12:17:42 PM
Rather than pick and choose, I edited all of the tangential comments regarding her husband. I also edited a post or two that were wholly inappropriate for this forum.
I don't know if this topic started here or was moved here, and I personally question its appropriateness for discussion here, but as long as it sticks closely to the subject of religious beliefs and practices I'll leave it active and try to watch it.
Thanks.
I don't know if this topic started here or was moved here, and I personally question its appropriateness for discussion here, but as long as it sticks closely to the subject of religious beliefs and practices I'll leave it active and try to watch it.
Thanks.
8/10/2011 1:49:42 PM
It started here with the question of whether or not running for public office is worth more than holding to your beliefs as confessed. Also, I wanted to point out that "exposing" a certain point of doctrine out of context was being done and because it is being done, it becomes a smear and causes more strife than the point of doctrine itself. I thought that the question was indeed worthy of discussion here where religion is discussed with intelligence and maturity.
I felt that for the most part, while contentious, the discord was honest, forthright and at the same time civil. I for one do not feel offended by those posts which disagree with my or my synod's position on the matter in the least. I enjoy posting in this forum and I understand that we're discussing matters that we feel define our eternal future. (or for those that feel the other way, lack of one) For myself, these discussions cause me to research and study my faith more. I would hope that this is true for the others here as well. We're going to disagree in here. If we were all in agreement there would only be one faith.
What to me would've been truly interesting is had she stayed with my synod and been elected, is what kind of inauguration there would have been; for starters, we don't participate in ecumenical prayer. Can you imagine what kind of posting there would've been with a purely secular event? Can you imagine the rhetoric on why there was no prayer and how there is no way she could be a christian? Could this country ever elect a confessional Lutheran, or for that matter, someone who's personal beliefs are different? How many of our countrymen really understand their church's doctrine? Our country has moved a long way since a Lutheran, John Hanson served as the first President of the United States. (GW was actually the 8th, but the first under the Constitution)
Just my ramblings....
I felt that for the most part, while contentious, the discord was honest, forthright and at the same time civil. I for one do not feel offended by those posts which disagree with my or my synod's position on the matter in the least. I enjoy posting in this forum and I understand that we're discussing matters that we feel define our eternal future. (or for those that feel the other way, lack of one) For myself, these discussions cause me to research and study my faith more. I would hope that this is true for the others here as well. We're going to disagree in here. If we were all in agreement there would only be one faith.
What to me would've been truly interesting is had she stayed with my synod and been elected, is what kind of inauguration there would have been; for starters, we don't participate in ecumenical prayer. Can you imagine what kind of posting there would've been with a purely secular event? Can you imagine the rhetoric on why there was no prayer and how there is no way she could be a christian? Could this country ever elect a confessional Lutheran, or for that matter, someone who's personal beliefs are different? How many of our countrymen really understand their church's doctrine? Our country has moved a long way since a Lutheran, John Hanson served as the first President of the United States. (GW was actually the 8th, but the first under the Constitution)
Just my ramblings....
8/10/2011 2:13:54 PM
Originally Posted By WindKnot1-1:
It started here with the question of whether or not running for public office is worth more than holding to your beliefs as confessed. Also, I wanted to point out that "exposing" a certain point of doctrine out of context was being done and because it is being done, it becomes a smear and causes more strife than the point of doctrine itself. I thought that the question was indeed worthy of discussion here where religion is discussed with intelligence and maturity...
It started here with the question of whether or not running for public office is worth more than holding to your beliefs as confessed. Also, I wanted to point out that "exposing" a certain point of doctrine out of context was being done and because it is being done, it becomes a smear and causes more strife than the point of doctrine itself. I thought that the question was indeed worthy of discussion here where religion is discussed with intelligence and maturity...
Understood. In that context, it is appropriate for discussion here as long as all abide by the rules of the forum.
And since it was started here (sometimes threads like this are moved here from GD before I ever see them) the disrespectful post(s) were indeed out of order, and I'll also stand by my removal of the off-topic tangents (harmless as they may or may not have been).
Carry on...
8/18/2011 3:53:18 AM
Originally Posted By WindKnot1-1:
Luther and the Lutheran Confessions identified the Roman Catholic papacy as the Antichrist for three main reasons: First, the papacy claimed to speak with an authority—even infallibility—that was equal to or surpassing the Word of God itself. By doing so, it put itself in a position of being "anti” or "in place of” Christ. Second, the papacy claimed that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church, making membership in a human organization a condition for salvation; finally, in emphasizing that faith and obedience are necessary for salvation, the papacy undermined the very heart and center of the biblical teaching that salvation is by God’s grace alone and comes to individuals through faith in Christ alone. In holding to each of these teachings, the Roman Catholic papacy placed itself in clear opposition to the foundation of the Christian faith, and therefore in opposition to Christ himself.
Although the Roman Catholic Church may have softened the way in which it refers to these doctrines, it has never repudiated or corrected them.
.
I would suggest you read our Catechism and then you might feel the need to correct at least the part I've bolded. Paragraphs 836-845 tell me that someone is misleading you.
Luther and the Lutheran Confessions identified the Roman Catholic papacy as the Antichrist for three main reasons: First, the papacy claimed to speak with an authority—even infallibility—that was equal to or surpassing the Word of God itself. By doing so, it put itself in a position of being "anti” or "in place of” Christ. Second, the papacy claimed that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church, making membership in a human organization a condition for salvation; finally, in emphasizing that faith and obedience are necessary for salvation, the papacy undermined the very heart and center of the biblical teaching that salvation is by God’s grace alone and comes to individuals through faith in Christ alone. In holding to each of these teachings, the Roman Catholic papacy placed itself in clear opposition to the foundation of the Christian faith, and therefore in opposition to Christ himself.
Although the Roman Catholic Church may have softened the way in which it refers to these doctrines, it has never repudiated or corrected them.
.
I'll just paste para 838 for your perusal.
"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324
What this paragraph is saying is that YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE CATHOLIC TO ATTAIN SALVATION. We consider all baptized Christians to be in a "certain" communion with the Catholic Church. That means we believe YOU to be "inside the church". Which means the statement that "There is no salvation outside the church" does not apply to YOU.
Do with this information what you will. But at the very least, stop spreading false accusations.
8/20/2011 1:54:47 PM
Also in that post...
The Council of Trent is still in force. At the opening of the Second Vatican Council, Pope John XXIII stated, “I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent.” Every cardinal, bishop and priest who participated in the Vatican II Council signed a document affirming Trent. No Pope has repudiated it since.
Here's just one example:
Sixth session, canons concerning justification:
· “If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 12).
· “If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 24).
· “If anyone says that the Catholic doctrine of justification as set forth by the holy council in the present decree, derogates in some respect from the glory of God or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, and does not rather illustrate the truth of our faith and no less the glory of God and of Christ Jesus, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 33).
Luther and therefore all Lutherans are condemned. Still.
Although the Roman Catholic Church may have softened the way in which it refers to these doctrines, it has never repudiated or corrected them.
The Council of Trent is still in force. At the opening of the Second Vatican Council, Pope John XXIII stated, “I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent.” Every cardinal, bishop and priest who participated in the Vatican II Council signed a document affirming Trent. No Pope has repudiated it since.
Here's just one example:
Sixth session, canons concerning justification:
· “If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 12).
· “If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 24).
· “If anyone says that the Catholic doctrine of justification as set forth by the holy council in the present decree, derogates in some respect from the glory of God or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, and does not rather illustrate the truth of our faith and no less the glory of God and of Christ Jesus, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 33).
Luther and therefore all Lutherans are condemned. Still.
