Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/12/2005 11:19:23 AM EDT
wondering how they differ from mainstream Christianity.

TIA for any info

Link Posted: 8/13/2005 6:58:20 PM EDT
This is consistent with what I've read about it. It's not orthodox Christianity in any sense.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 7:26:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 7:32:31 PM EDT by WildBoar]

Originally Posted By Dino:
wondering how they differ from mainstream Christianity.

TIA for any info




Church Of Christ? or Christian Scientists? They are two differing groups. I dont realyl agree with either one though.

I worked with a "church of christ" dude and he was into baptismal regeneration big time, something I dont adhere to.

Never met a person into "christian science" but understand they are quite "different"
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 7:30:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By WildBoar:

Originally Posted By Dino:
wondering how they differ from mainstream Christianity.

TIA for any info




Church Of Christ? or Christian Scientists? They are two differing groups. I dont realyl agree with either one though.




"Church of Christ, Scientist" = Christian Scientists.

"Church of Christ" is a different critter altogether.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 7:34:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By WildBoar:

Originally Posted By Dino:
wondering how they differ from mainstream Christianity.

TIA for any info




Church Of Christ? or Christian Scientists? They are two differing groups. I dont realyl agree with either one though.




"Church of Christ, Scientist" = Christian Scientists.

"Church of Christ" is a different critter altogether.



I wasnt sure if he was asking about both or the one.

ETA CArm is a pretty decent page.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 7:34:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 7:37:18 PM EDT by TexasSIG]

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By WildBoar:

Originally Posted By Dino:
wondering how they differ from mainstream Christianity.

TIA for any info




Church Of Christ? or Christian Scientists? They are two differing groups. I dont realyl agree with either one though.




"Church of Christ, Scientist" = Christian Scientists.

"Church of Christ" is a different critter altogether.




Yup. The Christian Scientists just pulling a name change to confuse people.

Does "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" ring a bell? They used to call
themselves Mormons, but that didn't "market" well....

If you're selling bullsh*t, you have to call it something besides bullsh*t or
no one will buy it.

Church of Christ doctrine is pretty straightforward BS as well.


The UCC has roots in the "covenantal" tradition—meaning there is no centralized authority or hierarchy that can impose any doctrine or form of worship on its members. Christ alone is Head of the church.


In other words, make it up as you see fit, no one is in charge anyway. Horse poop.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 2:14:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TexasSIG:

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By WildBoar:

Originally Posted By Dino:
wondering how they differ from mainstream Christianity.

TIA for any info




Church Of Christ? or Christian Scientists? They are two differing groups. I dont realyl agree with either one though.




"Church of Christ, Scientist" = Christian Scientists.

"Church of Christ" is a different critter altogether.




Yup. The Christian Scientists just pulling a name change to confuse people.

Does "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" ring a bell? They used to call
themselves Mormons, but that didn't "market" well....

If you're selling bullsh*t, you have to call it something besides bullsh*t or
no one will buy it.

Church of Christ doctrine is pretty straightforward BS as well.


The UCC has roots in the "covenantal" tradition—meaning there is no centralized authority or hierarchy that can impose any doctrine or form of worship on its members. Christ alone is Head of the church.


In other words, make it up as you see fit, no one is in charge anyway. Horse poop.



I was raised Church of Christ (not Church of Christ, Scientist aka Christian Scientist) and I can tell you what they believe is hardly "BS"

Its fundamentalist Christianity and they find wishy washy groups like the Catholics and Southern Baptists to be too liberal for them...

and to answer the other question, I was asking about the Christian Scientists, I did some research and found they are one of the splinter Christian groups like Mormons and JW's. I met a girl recently who told me that was her religion and I needed to know wether to run or not :p

Link Posted: 8/14/2005 4:01:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:


Its fundamentalist Christianity and they find wishy washy groups like the Catholics and Southern Baptists to be too liberal for them...




Which is proof of how clueless they are. You compare Southern Baptists and Catholics together
as "liberal"? WTF does Church of Christ doctrine state then if drinking, sex, birth control, dancing,
and the like are already banned by these 2 "liberal" churches? What's left to ban? Breathing?

Man, I'm more afraid of Church of Christ people now than I was before.......
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 4:09:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2005 4:11:36 PM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By TexasSIG:

Originally Posted By Dino:


Its fundamentalist Christianity and they find wishy washy groups like the Catholics and Southern Baptists to be too liberal for them...




Which is proof of how clueless they are. You compare Southern Baptists and Catholics together
as "liberal"? WTF does Church of Christ doctrine state then if drinking, sex, birth control, dancing,
and the like are already banned by these 2 "liberal" churches? What's left to ban? Breathing?

Man, I'm more afraid of Church of Christ people now than I was before.......



Not my beliefs anymore, but as a child in a CoC household the Word was the only rule we all lived by. The view that Southern Baptists and Catholics are too liberal is simply because they are so conservative. The Catholic Church recognizes evolution as fact, that alone makes them apostate in the views of many in the CoC (and on this board hehe)


Some CoC Congregations might have specific rules in addition to the Bible, but that was decided by the elders in each church. Thats what is meant by no centralized authority. Christ is the head of the church, the elders in each congregation act as stewards until his physical return. The differences in congregations aren't things like "we allow homos" and "we don't" but instead stuff like "we use wine and bread" and "we use grape juice and crackers"

They are an extremely conservative form of Christianity with very plain services.

My time in the CoC is one reason I never felt comfortable with liberal Christianity, all of the live music and people raising their hands during the sermon when they have the spirit kind of creeps me out

If your a Conservative Christian fundamentalist then you shouldn't be scared of the Church of Christ, they are the bedrock of Christian fundamentalism. They don't promote violence or abortion bombing and the worse that can be said of them is they are waiting for Jesus to come back and send everyone else (including Baptists and Catholics) straight to hell.

Link Posted: 8/14/2005 4:30:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Not my beliefs anymore, but as a child in a CoC household the Word was the only rule we all lived by. The view that Southern Baptists and Catholics are too liberal is simply because they are so conservative. The Catholic Church recognizes evolution as fact, that alone makes them apostate in the views of many in the CoC (and on this board hehe)



Not EXACTLY true. The Roman church has stated they find no direct conflict between the
story of creation in Genesis and the theory of evolution, as long as it is understood to
be a God initiated sequence of events. They do not state that it is true.



Some CoC Congregations might have specific rules in addition to the Bible, but that was decided by the elders in each church. Thats what is meant by no centralized authority. Christ is the head of the church, the elders in each congregation act as stewards until his physical return. The differences in congregations aren't things like "we allow homos" and "we don't" but instead stuff like "we use wine and bread" and "we use grape juice and crackers"



This alone puts them in the realm of a lot of churches, no real authority from Christ Himself to
conduct whatever "business" it is they conduct. Apostolic Succession is clearly defined
and appears to be required in the Bible, by Christ himself right before His acscension.
So these "no central authority" churches have no Biblical backing for their doctrines.



They are an extremely conservative form of Christianity with very plain services.

My time in the CoC is one reason I never felt comfortable with liberal Christianity, all of the live music and people raising their hands during the sermon when they have the spirit kind of creeps me out



I won't argue with that one. Electric guitars and drum set, strobe lights, and projector screens
are too weird for me as well. Reminds me of an Amway meeting.



If your a Conservative Christian fundamentalist then you shouldn't be scared of the Church of Christ, they are the bedrock of Christian fundamentalism. They don't promote violence or abortion bombing and the worse that can be said of them is they are waiting for Jesus to come back and send everyone else (including Baptists and Catholics) straight to hell.



Well, glad to hear they are an open-minded group. I guess since I am Anglican, a catholic and apostolic
church with direct history traceable back to the 12 Apostles, I'm goin' straight to hell.
That pretty much again reaffirms everything I've ever heard about the CoC.

Link Posted: 8/14/2005 5:20:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TexasSIG:

Well, glad to hear they are an open-minded group. I guess since I am Anglican, a catholic and apostolic
church with direct history traceable back to the 12 Apostles, I'm goin' straight to hell.
That pretty much again reaffirms everything I've ever heard about the CoC.




I understand, I am as troubled by the Christian view that all the members of the other religions are going to hell. /shrug

to each his own

Link Posted: 8/14/2005 5:50:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

I understand, I am as troubled by the Christian view that all the members of the other religions are going to hell. /shrug

to each his own




It is the Christian view because Jesus said it , it is not something that was pulled out of a hat.

I know people have a hard time with this, but you either believe what Jesus said or you dont.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 7:45:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
Its fundamentalist Christianity and they find wishy washy groups like the Catholics and Southern Baptists to be too liberal for them...



In what ways are Southern Baptists liberal?

Link Posted: 8/14/2005 7:52:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 5:32:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DrMark:

Originally Posted By Dino:
Its fundamentalist Christianity and they find wishy washy groups like the Catholics and Southern Baptists to be too liberal for them...



In what ways are Southern Baptists liberal?




they are not, that is the point
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 4:30:08 PM EDT
Tsk tsk TxSig,

Running your keyboard mouth again and nothing to back it up but your "ahem" apostolic " ahahaha" claim again.

So, without the spurious stamp of "apostolic" and no central authority save Christ Himself, then you are bankrupt and kaput? Lord give me strength

Its funny, here on our home away from home at ARFCOM, I have dueled with all kinds of stripes and hues that claim TRUE knowledge. And you are likely the most obtuse and vapid opponent of Christ I have yet come across.

You bang a tin drum with endless clangor and claim this apostolic succession that is laughable at best. At its worst a vile heresy against both Christ and His Word. You have shown your base ignorance by asking if the Bible is predictive in nature. This is just amazing to me.


And now, I hear you say you are "afraid" of those who promote a first century approach to worshipping Christ Jesus. Without a command stucture. Without any ceremony save that which the Lord Himself instituted ie "The Lords Supper". Without graven images. Without robes of state. Without gold or silver. No bands or music save that music which can be made by singing "acapella" which means btw "in the manner of the church". Hearing the Word preached unadorned by complicated theologies and "apostolic mysteries" that only wizened old men who are "learned in the mysteries of faith" can elucidate to us unwashed masses.


Yes Tex ol' boy, you SHOULD BE AFRAID. The death knell for your kind has sounded in the very fabric of the so called church you claim as "holy". Homosexuals are promoted by almost 50% of your membership as fitting to lead you. You and your apostolics reap the whirlwind my fine friend. The Word has come to mean so little to you that you would even sink to this level of degradation. While you personally do not promote it, as you have stated, alot of your fellows do. Alot. And you have the utmost gall and temerity, the very crust to say with a straight face even... that the Church of Christ has no authority? It rests within the pervue of a degenerate group of sodomites who claim "apostolic succession"??????

I am awestruck by how very abysmally little you know. Although I should know better by now, having lived this long.

Have the best day ever!

Dram out

Link Posted: 8/15/2005 4:44:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dramborleg:

You bang a tin drum with endless clangor and claim this apostolic succession that is laughable at best. At its worst a vile heresy against both Christ and His Word.




Well it's enough for me that Roman Catholics, Eposcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, The Church of England,
Presbytarian Apostolics,
basically all Anglican churches in, let's see, Africa, Australia, Europe, even Russia and Asia all believe
it is important. We're talking what here, 80-85% of the world Christians believe it?

That you think them all wrong makes me that more certain that they are right.
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 4:59:51 PM EDT
Here is one fitting for you Tex,

If everyone were jumping off a bridge, I suppose you would want to also. Because, you know, all the cool people are doing it.

Just remember Tex,

That first step is rumored to be a doozy.



M't:7:14: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.


Yeah... being in the majority makes you feel all warm.

Just remember the above;

Narrow
and
Few

Have the best day ever.

Dram out

Link Posted: 8/17/2005 1:46:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dramborleg:
Here is one fitting for you Tex,

If everyone were jumping off a bridge, I suppose you would want to also. Because, you know, all the cool people are doing it.

Just remember Tex,

That first step is rumored to be a doozy.



M't:7:14: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.


Yeah... being in the majority makes you feel all warm.

Just remember the above;

Narrow
and
Few

Have the best day ever.

Dram out






The trinity as you know it does not sound very loving or forgiving. Who are we to judge who is right and who is not. That is up to God, my friends.
Link Posted: 8/17/2005 7:57:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TexasSIG:

Originally Posted By Dramborleg:

You bang a tin drum with endless clangor and claim this apostolic succession that is laughable at best. At its worst a vile heresy against both Christ and His Word.




Well it's enough for me that Roman Catholics, Eposcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, The Church of England,
Presbytarian Apostolics,
basically all Anglican churches in, let's see, Africa, Australia, Europe, even Russia and Asia all believe
it is important. We're talking what here, 80-85% of the world Christians believe it?

That you think them all wrong makes me that more certain that they are right.




TexasSIG,

Whatever made you think that Lutherans affirm apostolic succession?

I’m afraid that you will need to remove them from this list.

For your reading pleasure, here is a link to what Lutherans believe

Tractate on the Power and Primacy of the Pope

From this you can gather that we have no use for the concept of apostolic succession. According to the Lutheran view, it is most important to continue in the doctrine of the Apostles.

viator
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 4:14:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/18/2005 5:06:07 AM EDT by TexasSIG]

Originally Posted By viator:

TexasSIG,

Whatever made you think that Lutherans affirm apostolic succession?

I’m afraid that you will need to remove them from this list.

For your reading pleasure, here is a link to what Lutherans believe

Tractate on the Power and Primacy of the Pope

From this you can gather that we have no use for the concept of apostolic succession. According to the Lutheran view, it is most important to continue in the doctrine of the Apostles.

viator



I know for a fact that the Lutheran Church affirms Apostolic Succession. You need to read
up on what that means, it has nothing to do with the Pope.

The Lutheran Church uses the Nicene Creed as a statement of faith, clearly stating a belief
in a "catholic and apostolic church". If you will read up on what that means, you will
find there is no conflict. The Lutheran Church CAN and DOES trace a direct lineage
to one of the 12. It does NOT have to be a straight line to the first Pope, but
in this case it IS since Luther was Roman Catholic. You did know that Luther
was Roman Catholic right? Just making sure.

Catholic means universal church. Apostolic, as used here means lineage to one of the 12.

This is what I mean when I talk about people attending a church but not really knowing what
that church stands for.

ANY church that uses the Nicene creed is affirming the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, including
Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopaloans, all Anglicans, and many others.

A quote from one of several online resources. If you need more I can provide them.


The Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Anglican, Old Catholic, Independent Catholic, and some Lutheran Churches hold that apostolic succession is maintained through the ordination of their bishops in unbroken personal succession back to the apostles but these Churches do not necessarily interpret this "succession" identically.


The "some" Lutheran churches include the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, which came
from the merger of the American Lutheran Chruch and the Lutheran Church in America.
There were a few groups that did not like the merger, and they split off. When they split off,
they did so WITHOUT a Bishop. Since Apostolic Succession is generally interpreted to be
Bishops and higher, splitting off without a Bishop invalidated the succession. It's not
surprising that a few renegade churches would say Apostolic Succession doesn't mean
anything, since they broke it to go their own way. I would say 90% or more Lutheran
Churches (including those in the Missouri Synod, one of the largest) absolutely believe
that Apostolic Succession is important. These renegade churches, if continue to use
the Nicene Creed, are talking out both sides of their mouths doctrinally speaking.

If you are attending one of these churches, I would politely suggest you at least read into
the history of why those that left did so. You might be shocked to learn what happened.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession

What happens many times is people get in the habit of saying that thing by rote and never
thinking about what it means.


Here is another that will likely tick you off. Lutherans, as well as Episcopalians and Anglicans,
are Catholics. So when you go to a Lutheran Church you go to a Catholic Church.

If you want me to explain that I will post what it means, but you might be shocked to learn
that if you're Lutheran you are also Catholic.

That oughta make plenty of people mad, at least until they read up on it a bit.
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 4:04:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/18/2005 4:38:47 PM EDT by viator]

Originally Posted By viator:

TexasSIG,

Whatever made you think that Lutherans affirm apostolic succession?

I’m afraid that you will need to remove them from this list.

For your reading pleasure, here is a link to what Lutherans believe

Tractate on the Power and Primacy of the Pope

From this you can gather that we have no use for the concept of apostolic succession. According to the Lutheran view, it is most important to continue in the doctrine of the Apostles.

viator






I know for a fact that the Lutheran Church affirms Apostolic Succession. You need to read
up on what that means, it has nothing to do with the Pope.




TexasSIG, I’m sorry. Your “facts” are incorrect. Apostolic Succession has everything to do with the Papacy. According to the Roman Catholic Church, the only way to become a priest [pastor] is to be ordained by a bishop who has been created by the pope. And all of these guys claim that this succession goes way back to the days of the Apostles.

I’ll cut and paste a few snippets from The Tractate on the Power and Primacy of the Pope and the Smalcald Articles, a confession closely associated with it, to help you understand the Lutheran view of apostolic succession.


LINK: www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/concord/web/smc-03j.html

Article X: Of Ordination and the Call

If the bishops would be true bishops [would rightly discharge their office], and would devote themselves to the Church and the Gospel, it might be granted to them for the sake of love and unity, but not from necessity, to ordain and confirm us and our preachers; omitting, however, all comedies and spectacular display [deceptions, absurdities, and appearances] of unchristian [heathenish] parade and pomp. But because they neither are, nor wish to be, true bishops, but worldly lords and princes, who will neither preach, nor teach, nor baptize, nor administer the Lord's Supper, nor perform any work or office of the Church, and, moreover, persecute and condemn those who discharge these functions, having been called to do so, the Church ought not on their account to remain without ministers [to be forsaken by or deprived of ministers].

Therefore, as the ancient examples of the Church and the Fathers teach us, we ourselves will and ought to ordain suitable persons to this office; and, even according to their own laws, they have not the right to forbid or prevent us.
For their laws say that those ordained even by heretics should be declared [truly] ordained and stay ordained [and that such ordination must not be changed], as St. Jerome writes of the Church at Alexandria, that at first it was governed in common by priests and preachers, without bishops.

Here is some more:

LINK: www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/concord/web/smc-pope.html


Now, in order that our proof [reason and opinion] may be [better] understood, we shall first define what they call being above all [what it means that he boasts of being supreme] by divine right. For they mean that he is universal [that the Pope is the general bishop over the entire Christian Church], or, as they say, ecumenical bishop, i.e., from whom all bishops and pastors throughout the entire world ought to seek ordination and [confirmation, who [alone] is to have the right of electing, ordaining, confirming, deposing all bishops [and pastors].
In the first place, therefore, let us show from the [holy] Gospel that the Roman bishop is not by divine right above [cannot arrogate to himself any supremacy whatever over] other bishops and pastors.


Of the Power and Jurisdiction of Bishops.


Jerome, therefore, teaches that it is by human authority that the grades of bishop and elder or pastor are distinct. And the subject itself declares this, because the power [the office and command] is the same, as he has said above. But one matter afterwards made a distinction between bishops and pastors namely, ordination, because it was [so] arranged that one bishop should ordain ministers in a number of churches.

But since by divine authority the grades of bishop and pastor are not diverse, it is manifest that ordination administered by a pastor in his own church is valid by divine law [if a pastor in his own church ordains certain suitable persons to the ministry, such ordination is, according to divine law, undoubtedly effective and right].

Therefore, when the regular bishops become enemies of the Church, or are unwilling to administer ordination, the churches retain their own right. [Because the regular bishops persecute the Gospel and refuse to ordain suitable persons, every church has in this case full authority to ordain its own ministers.]

For wherever the Church is, there is the authority [command] to administer the Gospel. Therefore it is necessary for the Church to retain the authority to call, elect, and ordain ministers….


From all these things it is clear that the Church retains the right to elect and ordain ministers. And the wickedness and tyranny of bishops afford cause for schism and discord [therefore, if the bishops either are heretics, or will not ordain suitable persons, the churches are in duty bound before God, according to divine law, to ordain for themselves pastors and ministers. Even though this be now called an irregularity or schism, it should be known that the godless doctrine and tyranny of the bishops is chargeable with it], because Paul, Gal. 1, 7 f., enjoins that bishops who teach and defend a godless doctrine and godless services should be regarded as accursed.



Since, therefore, bishops have tyrannically transferred this jurisdiction to themselves alone, and have basely abused it, there is no need, because of this jurisdiction, to obey bishops. But since there are just reasons why we do not obey, it is right also to restore this jurisdiction to godly pastors [to whom, by Christ's command, it belongs], and to see to it that it is legitimately exercised for the reformation of morals and the glory of God.


Since, therefore, the bishops, who are devoted to the Pope, defend godless doctrine and godless services, and do not ordain godly teachers, yea, aid the cruelty of the Pope, and, besides, have wrested the jurisdiction from pastors, and exercise it only tyrannically [for their own profit]; and lastly, since in matrimonial cases they observe many unjust laws, there are reasons sufficiently numerous and necessary why the churches should not recognize these as bishops.

I tried to leave enough text intact to give you context while providing a brief enough quotation that someone might take the time to actually read it.


The Lutheran Church uses the Nicene Creed as a statement of faith, clearly stating a belief
in a "catholic and apostolic church". If you will read up on what that means, you will
find there is no conflict. The Lutheran Church CAN and DOES trace a direct lineage
to one of the 12. It does NOT have to be a straight line to the first Pope, but
in this case it IS since Luther was Roman Catholic. You did know that Luther
was Roman Catholic right? Just making sure.

Catholic means universal church. Apostolic, as used here means lineage to one of the 12.




Thank you for your concern. I am well aware that Luther was a Roman Catholic of the Augustinian Order.

The word “catholic” does indeed mean “universal church.”

The word “apostolic”, however, as I have alluded in my first reply to you, means that we continue in the teaching of the Apostles, their doctrine. The true apostolic church is found where true apostolic doctrine is taught. It is in that sense that the apostolic church is tied to the 12. “Apostolic” in the sense of a direct chain of laying on of hands back to the 12 means nothing to us.

I have read at great length, and am certain that all true Lutherans reject the notion of Apostolic Succession as promulgated by the Roman Catholic Church. The above quotations above demonstrate this assertion.


This is what I mean when I talk about people attending a church but not really knowing what that church stands for.



TexasSIG, You are an amazing man! I post a half a dozen brief sentences, and from that you have the skill to discern my abounding ignorance! Surely this is a spiritual gift!

Or, alternative explanations exist. Whatever may be discovered, we do know this without a doubt: somebody certainly doesn’t know as much as he thinks.


ANY church that uses the Nicene creed is affirming the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, includingMethodists, Lutherans, Episcopaloans, all Anglicans, and many others.


This is incorrect. Explanation above.


A quote from one of several online resources. If you need more I can provide them.


The Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Anglican, Old Catholic, Independent Catholic, and some Lutheran Churches hold that apostolic succession is maintained through the ordination of their bishops in unbroken personal succession back to the apostles but these Churches do not necessarily interpret this "succession" identically.




The "some" Lutheran churches include the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, which came from the merger of the American Lutheran Chruch and the Lutheran Church in America.
There were a few groups that did not like the merger, and they split off. When they split off,
they did so WITHOUT a Bishop. Since Apostolic Succession is generally interpreted to be
Bishops and higher, splitting off without a Bishop invalidated the succession. It's not
surprising that a few renegade churches would say Apostolic Succession doesn't mean
anything, since they broke it to go their own way. I would say 90% or more Lutheran
Churches (including those in the Missouri Synod, one of the largest) absolutely believe
that Apostolic Succession is important. These renegade churches, if continue to use
the Nicene Creed, are talking out both sides of their mouths doctrinally speaking.






I have clarified above what Lutherans mean when they confess the “apostolic church”. The problem is not that we are double talkers, but that you are trying to impose your understanding of that phrase upon another church. Given the quotes provided above, one is compelled to arrive at the belief that Lutherans do not view favorably any claim that apostolic succession is a necessity.

You are correct on this point: The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) is favorably disposed toward apostolic succession. This was an issue when they entered into fellowship with the Episcopalians; they had to buy into it. But, it was a battle among the ELCAites; even many of them didn’t swallow that pill easily. Don’t forget, however, that the ELCA is comprised of not only the LCA and ALC, but also the AELC. While the AELC was the smallest of the 3 bodies, it was a driving force in the merger.

You may also be correct that 90% of all “Lutherans” worldwide join the ELCA in their attitude toward apostolic succession. This large number would comprise those bodies in the “Lutheran” World Federation (LWF). The problem lies in assuming that just because someone claims to be a Lutheran, that that person is a Lutheran. We’ll get back to this in a moment.

However, your bold assertion: “I would say 90% or more Lutheran Churches (including those in the Missouri Synod, one of the largest) absolutely believe that Apostolic Succession is important” is inaccurate. In fact, it is patently false. The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (LCMS) categorically rejects apostolic succession in its official teaching. The dogmatics textbook used in the LCMS for the last century, and from which all living pastors were taught, has a section debunking apostolic succession. (I’m here considering the original German and the English translation to be the same book.) And that textbook was based on a German dogmatics text that was written by the founder of the LCMS in the mid 1800’s, the Rev. Dr. C. F. W. Walther. So, I can confidently affirm that the LCMS has always, without qualification, rejected apostolic succession.

Who is a Lutheran? A Lutheran is a person who confesses all of the doctrine contained in the Book of Concord which includes the Tractate and the Smalcald Articles quoted above.



To make a point:

I am a Chinese farmer.

I am a Chinese farmer.

I am a Chinese farmer.

I am a Chinese farmer.

I AM A CHINESE FARMER.


There are specific criteria which must be met for the above statement to be true. Namely, the claimant must be both Chinese and a farmer. It does not matter how many times I made the above assertion or how loudly I proclaimed it; it would be false. I am of Germanic descent and do not till the soil with anything larger than a 3 iron. (Although I can get as deep as a 6 bottom plow!)

There are specific criteria to determine whether one is a Lutheran or not. That criteria is contained in the Book of Concord. Since the Book of Concord rejects apostolic succession, that means that anyone who affirms apostolic succession is not a Lutheran. Therefore, most of the so-called “Lutherans” in the world are not “Lutherans.”


If you are attending one of these churches, I would politely suggest you at least read into
the history of why those that left did so. You might be shocked to learn what happened.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession

What happens many times is people get in the habit of saying that thing by rote and never
thinking about what it means.


Here is another that will likely tick you off. Lutherans, as well as Episcopalians and Anglicans,
are Catholics. So when you go to a Lutheran Church you go to a Catholic Church.

If you want me to explain that I will post what it means, but you might be shocked to learn
that if you're Lutheran you are also Catholic.

That oughta make plenty of people mad, at least until they read up on it a bit.





Finally, Lutherans are “catholic” not “Catholics” as in “Roman Catholics.” In fact, Lutherans are the true evangelical catholics. Lutherans hold to and teach the universal truth revealed to the church on earth through the apostles. Lutherans are evangelical because we are a church of the gospel, not the law. I attend an Apostolic Church every Sunday. The funny thing is: the Roman Catholic Church is not "catholic" because it does not teach the doctrine of the apostles.

One thing to learn when providing references: primary documents are to be preferred. That way one does not base one’s understanding of something on another’s interpretation. That is why I provided for you the quotations above. There are no higher authorities among Lutherans to which one can appeal for an understanding of Lutheranism.

Wikidpedia may be easy to use, but it is not scholarly. I often get a chuckle out of the inane tripe posted there. For example, you could have avoided many of your errors above by not depending on this undependable source. So, I’ll pass on whatever secondary sources you may provide in any links. I don't have time to correct all of their errors.

My quote fu is weak. I hope that I haven’t made a mess out of this.

viator


Edited to try to correct quotes that were wrong. I told you my quote fu was weak. I'm just hoping that I didn't mess things up even more.
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 5:28:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/18/2005 5:38:23 PM EDT by TexasSIG]
I never said Lutherans accept Apostolic Succession 'as defined by the Roman Church'.

The Lutheran Church does indeed believe it has an unbroken succession from the 12.

Why does that piss you off?

This has nothing to do with Rome or the Pope.

Of COURSE they don't have anything to do with the Pope, that's why it's a Protestant Church.


And I never said Lutherans were Roman Catholic, I said they were Catholic.

Again, you are looking for a fight where there is none for whatever reason.

Somehow you have decided that I am a defender of the Roman Church and decided to attack
that rather than deal with the issue here.

Again, I'll state it so it is clear, and it comes straight from your own churches doctrine.

1) The Lutheran Church can trace an unbroken succession of Bishops directly back to the 12
2) The Lutheran Church is a Catholic church

There is nothing you can say that will change that, and I am not quite sure why it pisses you off.


I don't know if you have read the Defense of the Augsburg Confession, but the LCMS, ELCA,
Episcopal Church in American, and the other Anglicans all subscribe.

Now granted, the LCMS has some odd views on lots of things, but even they point to the
Augsburg Confessions as doctrinal.

I'm not going to begin to quote from it here, it's 192 pages long, I doubt anyone would
make it through

Here is a link to a PDF of the document. This is from the LCMS web side, but it's
on all the others as well.

Read through that and see if you still feel the same way. I cannot sway your opinion,
all I can say is this document is where I saw it all described and I believe it to be so.

If LCMS rejects all of this, they should remove reference to this document. This is
where all of these Churches originated.

Defense of the Augsburg Confession



All of the supporting documentation, the Confutation from Rome, and the original Confession are
here:

orthodoxlutheran.fws1.com/relations/rome.html

By the way, I am Episcopalian, not Lutheran, I'm just giving links to Lutheran web sites because they
have easier links to the documents.

I would advise the Roman Catholics not to read this, it will make you angry. Sorry......

And finally, always remember Luthers words concerning all of this:


our churches dissent from the church catholic in no article of faith but only omit some few abuses which are new and have been adopted by the fault of the times".


Link Posted: 8/18/2005 6:04:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/18/2005 6:07:17 PM EDT by viator]

Originally Posted By TexasSIG:
I never said Lutherans accept Apostolic Succession 'as defined by the Roman Church'.

The Lutheran Church does indeed believe it has an unbroken succession from the 12.

Why does that piss you off?




The Lutheran Church does not affirm an unbroken succession from the original apostolate. If you can’t understand that from the quotes I provided in the last post, then there isn’t anything I can post to disabuse you of your firmly held, but nevertheless erroneous ideas. At least I have posted enough that a reasonable person perusing this thread will understand.


And I never said Lutherans were Roman Catholic, I said they were Catholic.


And I replied that we are not "Catholic". "Catholic" is shorthand for "Roman Catholic." When we wish to refer to the universal church, we spell "catholic" with a small "c" as Luther did in your quotation below.


Again, I'll state it so it is clear, and it comes straight from your own churches doctrine.

1) The Lutheran Church can trace an unbroken succession of Bishops directly back to the 12
2) The Lutheran Church is a Catholic church

There is nothing you can say that will change that, and I am not quite sure why it pisses you off.




And, as I have written and demonstrated before, true Lutherans have absolutely no interest in tracing "an unbroken succession of Bishops back to the 12." Not only that, we couldn't prove such an assertion if we wanted to. You can make your claims as frequently as you desire, but you will remain wrong.


I don't know if you have read the Defense of the Augsburg Confession, but the LCMS, ELCA,
Episcopal Church in American, and the other Anglicans all subscribe.

Now granted, the LCMS has some odd views on lots of things, but even they point to the
Augsburg Confessions as doctrinal.

I'm not going to begin to quote from it here, it's 192 pages long, I doubt anyone would
make it through

Here is a link to a PDF of the document. This is from the LCMS web side, but it's
on all the others as well.




I have read the Apology of the Augsburg Confession. I am no expert on either the Anglicans or Episcopalians, but I think that you are in error. I believe that they subscribed to the Augsburg Confession, not the Apology.

Remember when I told you that not everyone who claims to be a Lutheran is a Lutheran? This brings the point home. The ELCA holds what is called a “quatenus” subscription to the Lutheran Confessions. This means that they subscribe to the documents “in so far as” they are in agreement with Scripture.

The LCMS holds all of its pastors and professors to a “quia” subscription. This means that they believe that the Confessions are true “because” they are in agreement with Scripture.


Read through that and see if you still feel the same way. I cannot sway your opinion,
all I can say is this document is where I saw it all described and I believe it to be so.

If LCMS rejects all of this, they should remove reference to this document. This is
where all of these Churches originated.

Defense of the Augsburg Confession




You are correct. You will not sway my opinion. That is because I have formally studied all of these documents and understand what they mean. I think the problem is that you think you know what they mean, but do not.


And finally, always remember Luthers words concerning all of this:


our churches dissent from the church catholic in no article of faith but only omit some few abuses which are new and have been adopted by the fault of the times".




Thanks for proving my point. Lutherans refer to the universal church as "catholic" with a small "c".

We are not "Catholics"; we are "catholics".

viator

ETA: Not only is my quote fu weak, but my spell fu is too.
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 6:40:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/18/2005 6:46:05 PM EDT by TexasSIG]

Originally Posted By viator:

The Lutheran Church does not affirm an unbroken succession from the original apostolate. If you can’t understand that from the quotes I provided in the last post, then there isn’t anything I can post to disabuse you of your firmly held, but nevertheless erroneous ideas. At least I have posted enough that a reasonable person perusing this thread will understand.



That is simply not the case. As you said yourself, they had to do such to remain in communion
with the Episcopals and every other Anglican Church. The Augsburg Confessions make it clear that
there was no intent to change that order and after the split the Bishops were not re-ordained.



And I replied that we are not "Catholic". "Catholic" is shorthand for "Roman Catholic." When we wish to refer to the universal church, we spell "catholic" with a small "c" as Luther did in your quotation below.



Now you're just playing word games. Catholic means universal church, Roman Catholic means
the Catholic Church of Rome. Again, in Luthers' own writings and in the Augsburg Confession,
the originating document of all this mess the word Catholic is capitalized, and only references
to Rome, Romish, etc refer to that church. You are playing word games there, for no gain.




And, as I have written and demonstrated before, true Lutherans have absolutely no interest in tracing "an unbroken succession of Bishops back to the 12." Not only that, we couldn't prove such an assertion if we wanted to. You can make your claims as frequently as you desire, but you will remain wrong.



They may not have a current interest in fooling with it, but again, you said yourself they had
to agree to such to remain in communion with the other Anglican Churches, which do
VERY MUCH believe in Apostolic Succession. So you contradict your own words and again,
the Augsburgh Confessions make no reference to breaking this chain. Once again,
I'm not sure why this bothers you so.



I have read the Apology of the Augsburg Confession. I am no expert on either the Anglicans or Episcopalians, but I think that you are in error. I believe that they subscribed to the Augsburg Confession, not the Apology.

Remember when I told you that not everyone who claims to be a Lutheran is a Lutheran? This brings the point home. The ELCA holds what is called a “quatenus” subscription to the Lutheran Confessions. This means that they subscribe to the documents “in so far as” they are in agreement with Scripture.

The LCMS holds all of its pastors and professors to a “quia” subscription. This means that they believe that the Confessions are true “because” they are in agreement with Scripture.




See that makes no sense since the all the Apology was intended to provide was greater justification
for the few things that were argued back in the Roman Confutation. So you can't subscribe
to the Augsburg Confession but not subscribe to the document that explains the individual articles.
That makes no sense at all. It went this way
1) Augsburg Confession was sent to the Emperor. He asked the Roman church to respond to the
articles.
2) The Roman Confutation was the answer from Rome concerning the Augsburg document.
Rome agreed with some thing, and disagreed with others. The Emperor then send this
Confutation back as the official answer from the throne in Rome.
3) Another document, detainling only the articles that Rome rejected the first time, was sent
back to the Emperor. This is the Apology (in the language of the day, Apology didn't mean
I'm sorry, it meant "explanation"). This document detailed the articles and explained
where they did and did not agree with the Confutation.

There is no seperation of the Confession and it's explanation, they are the same thing.

You have to understand that there was never an attempt to create a "new" church, just a church
that could continue to be cathololic, but not take orders from Rome. The Apology was the last
document back and forth unfortunately, because Rome had had enough arguing. They found
it easier to just declare the whole bunch heretics and move on.

At that time, Bishops that had been ordained by Rome, and who felt they were justified in
retaining the title Bishop, moved their allegiance from Rome to other places.

Same thing happened in England with the CoE. Roman ordained Bishops changed their
political allegiance to Canterbury rather than Rome, but in their minds and hearts were still
Catholic Bishops.

Therefore, like it or not, a Bishop today in the Episcopal church, the Anglican Church, The
Lutheran Church, and even the Methodist Church (some argue John Wesley may or may not
be entitled to the succession thing, I have no idea on that one) can trace an unbroken
line of Bishops back to the Popes of Rome.

THAT is what Apostolic Succession means, and it is in fact what the word "Episcopal" means,
"of or pertaining to a Bishop".

So any Bishops later ordained were defacto connected to this lineage. The only way you could
break that would be for a group to leave and start a new church with no Bishop going with them.
Some agrue that was what happened with the Methodists.

But, the Lutheran Church did not do that, they had Bishops that went with them.

So whether or not the later splits in the Lutheran church decided that doctrine was
important or not, if they had a Bishop, the line was unbroken.

Now whether or not they consider that "doctrinally required" really doesn't matter. They are in
fact entitled to the lineage directly from the church of Rome. These Bishops were NOT
re-ordained. In England for example, Edward didn't re-ordain any Bishops, he simply
accepted an oath of allegiance to the ArchBishop of Canterbury, who himself had
been ordained as a Bishop by Rome.

I simply don't understand why that upsets anyone, or is a cause for argument. It is
an absolute fact, documented historically, and still in existence today.

I mean to offense to you but there is truly nothing to argue here and I don't understand
why you do so.




You are correct. You will not sway my opinion. That is because I have formally studied all of these documents and understand what they mean. I think the problem is that you think you know what they mean, but do not.



I have formally studied all of this myself, thanks. It's clearly written and not complicated.
You are referencing newer documents that say "we do not believe this matters", and that
may very well be true. But whether or not it matters does not change the fact that it
happened, and is documented as happening.

The only way to break it would be for Bishops to renounce their ordination, or be excommunicated,
then start a new church and ordain themselves from scratch. That has not happened
as far as I can tell, except in the case of John Wesley who some say was never a Bishop.

Whether or not the individual groups that remain like it, there IS and always will be a lineage
that can be traced back to the Roman Church. Not allegiance, but historical lineage.
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 6:52:25 PM EDT
I think if I had to go back to the chruch for some stupid reason I'd go Catholic because they seem to be more in turn with the Heathen Worldview then any other denomination. It just makes sense to pray to more then one god/saint/whatever and follow a code of works to have a good afterlife. I think my afterlife should be on my head, not pushed off on a "saviour" of some kind. I'm responsible for me and no one else. I know it's off topic more or less but I've had a few and I just had to say it somewhere and here is as good a place as any. Not to mention that my birth mother was Catholic and my ancestors were Irish Catholic. Of course if you follow it further back then we get to Odin(Wotan) and Thor and the other Indo-European gods and goddesses that are sometimes calle the "Norse" gods. Oh well, sorry about the off topic stuff. In Frith and Troth.
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 7:01:40 PM EDT
TexasSIG,

I don't think that you are reading what I am writing before you reply. At the very least, there is a lack of understanding.

I've made my point. I'll let it rest.

viator
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 7:18:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/18/2005 8:25:40 PM EDT by TexasSIG]
Edited.

Done with this.
Top Top