I was at one time in the United States Army. I don't know if it was universally true but I was ordered to memorize all three of my "General Orders". Recently I was surprised that I still remembered the first:
"I will guard everything within the limits of my post and quit my post only when properly relieved."
It was serious business if an American soldier went to sleep on guard duty.
Also recently, I happened to read a quote from a very great man in the history of true Christianity, Martin Luther:
"If I profess with the loudest voice and the clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I am professing Him. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on the battlefront besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point."
What might this say to those of us that shrink and refuse to confront and do battle with the antichristian evil of our New Age and politically correct world?
Duty, Honor, Christ: What say ye?
Denny
Rom. 3:22-24
Denny
Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." [John 6:68]
Luther's words...."Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on the battlefront besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point."
What might this say to those of us that shrink and refuse to confront and do battle with the antichristian evil of our New Age and politically correct world?
Duty, Honor, Christ: What say ye?
Actually,I believe we all live where light meets darkness. So we can't escape it. The antithesis is in our face every day. Can we say with Joshua, "But as for me and my house we will serve the LORD."?
Joshua 24:14-16
"Now therefore, fear the LORD, serve Him in sincerity and in truth, and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the River and in Egypt. Serve the LORD! And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."
Certainly there's a cost to discipleship. We must carry our cross and follow Him. Even as our Master suffered ridicule so will His followers.
Denny, I like the phrases you've sighted from your days in the military and the quote from Luther. I feel challenged by them and rightly so. When I read these statements it encourages me to make an assessment of my life. Am I hiding my light under a bushel or putting it on a lampstand so others can see the Light.
Actually I was thinking about the testimony of our lives when I heard the President's speech today. He said, "From the viewpoint of the centuries the questions that come to us are:
1. Did our generation advance the cause of freedom?
2. Did our character bring credit to that cause?
May God give us the grace and courage to be both salt and light in this generation. I hope we can man our posts and keep the faith no matter how our adversary attacks us.
Wes
When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
Also recently, I happened to read a quote from a very great man in the history of true Christianity, Martin Luther:
"If I profess with the loudest voice and the clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I am professing Him. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on the battlefront besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point."
What might this say to those of us that shrink and refuse to confront and do battle with the antichristian evil of our New Age and politically correct world?
Duty, Honor, Christ: What say ye?
The loyalty of the soldier is being proved everyday in this new age politically correct world. The 66th General Synod of the Bible Presbyterian Church gallantly defended Vice Pres. Wallace Schulz of the LCMS after he had been viciously attacked in the media and by his own denomination for suspending Rev. Benke, a LCMS minister who worshipped with the heathen at Yankee Stadium post 9/11 and has never repented.
Rev. Benke's suspension was eventually overturned. He was completely vindicated by the recent LCMS convention and is currently a district president. Dr. Schulz has been removed from his synod office and was fired from his position as principle speaker of "The Lutheran Hour."
Yes, we expect persecution from the world but it is shocking when it comes from within the church. My pastor proved his loyalty today. He was describing the persecution of Christians in the world and closed his sermon by adding, "And Wally Schulz who was fired from 'The Lutheran Hour' because of his bold witness for Christ." This is the first time he had spoken from the pulpit on the shameful scandal that is destroying the Missouri Synod.
Point of clarity speratus that was in regards to that Lutheran Pastor praying with the Moslems at the ecumenical gathering right? And how some called for his resignation and others are saying that it was all right? Is that correct? I take it Schulz was against the ecumenical prayer?
Peter
If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
Rev. Benke prayed at an interfaith worship service that included pagan clergy of various types. Charges of syncretism were brought against him. VP Schulz was assigned to judge the case. When Rev. Benke failed to repent of his sin, VP Schulz then suspended him from the clergy rostor. Immediately after his ruling was made public, Schulz was fired. The suspension was reversed on appeal. During the summer convention, Schulz and all the officers who agreed with him and who had supported his action were voted out of office. The vote was 53% to 47%.
My statement that Dr. Schulz was fired immediately after his ruling is not true and I apologize for it. However, he was fired shortly after the ruling. The President of the Lutheran Laymen's League says that Dr. Schulz was fired because he did not apologize for violating the League's conflict of interest policy.
Quote
The conflict of interest policy states: "Activities shall not be entered into which may knowingly be detrimental to the interests of the International Lutheran Laymen's League and its subsidiaries." I'm certain by now that all of you know the events that have led to this situation. Dr. Schulz's ruling in regard to matters in the Missouri Synod's Atlantic District has caused polarization, and the effect on Lutheran Hour Ministries has been immediate and harmful. Stations have taken our programs off the air. Sponsors have indicated that they will withhold support. Many listeners and donors have turned away from us. Others have lobbied us repeatedly to stand by and endorse Dr. Schulz's action. In all cases, attention has been deflected from the Gospel and toward the faults, frailties and failings of human beings and their institutions. Please hear this clearly: Lutheran Hour Ministries takes no position on the ruling itself. However, the Executive Committee anticipated that any ruling Dr. Schulz made could harm our ministry and asked him to recuse himself. Despite our request, he elected to rule. In the process, he pulled Lutheran Hour Ministries into the controversy.
Dr. Schulz replied that he could not recuse himself and remain faithful to his ordination vows. In any event, the LLL knew of his refusal to recuse months earlier and took no action until after the ruling. Independent groups outside the LCMS recognize that the ruling lead to his termination,
Quote
Bible Presbyterian Church Resolution 66:12
On Participation With Non-Christian Religious Leaders in National Days of Prayer and Memorial Services
In light of events in the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, regarding recent public controversies over the participation of a prominent leader in the September 23, 2001, “Pray for America” event at Yankee Stadium, New York City, which has led to the removal of the conservative Lutheran Hour speaker Dr. Wallace Schulz for his strong stand against such participation with non-Christian religious leaders, the 66th General Synod of the Bible Presbyterian Church declares on Scriptural grounds that participation in ecumenical and syncretistic services of this type is tantamount to “bowing the knee to Baal” or falling down before the Babylonian image set up by Nebuchadnezzar, which all Christian men of conviction will always refuse to do even on pain of death. Be it resolved that the 66th General Synod of the Bible Presbyterian Church, meeting in Lakeland, FL, August 1-6, 2002, commends the action of Dr. Wallace Schulz in his stand against participation in multi-religious services by Christian ministers and declares all such participation as compromise which is totally unworthy of ministers of the Gospel.
I wonder how your denomination would have judged Elijah for his participation with the Priests of Baal, disregarding the fact that he prevailed and Jehovah was shown to be LORD? If Shultz rejects the validity of all other pagan religions and affirms that Christianity is the sole truth and salvation is only through faith in Jesus Christ, then I can't see why the man was disciplined? In my estimation, it provided for a marvelous opportunity for a conservative Christian to give witness to the true living God Who alone answers the prayers of those who have been made alive in Christ Jesus. So, based upon the little information you have provided, which may be admittedly insufficient in itself to make a sound judgment on this case, I would have to say that Shultz did no wrong but rather he was wronged.
So if Benke had prayed in an ecumenical group that consisted of say Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, ie: Christian denominations then Schulz wouldn't have accused Benke of "bending the knee to Baal". Am I reading this right?
Or if perhaps Benke had prayed something that spoke to the exclusivity of salvation alone through Christ then Schulz wouldn't have accused him. Perhaps that would have been considered appropriate?
Peter
If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
Pilgrim said: If Shultz rejects the validity of all other pagan religions and affirms that Christianity is the sole truth and salvation is only through faith in Jesus Christ, then I can't see why the man was disciplined? In my estimation, it provided for a marvelous opportunity for a conservative Christian to give witness to the true living God Who alone answers the prayers of those who have been made alive in Christ Jesus. So, based upon the little information you have provided, which may be admittedly insufficient in itself to make a sound judgment on this case, I would have to say that Shultz did no wrong but rather he was wronged.
If Rev. Benke had rejected the validity of the pagan religions and proclaimed Christ as the only way to salvation, I'm sure he would not have been charged with syncretism. He would have probably been run out of Yankee Stadium. Here is his actual prayer given after he was strengthed by the prayers of pagans:
Quote
Oh, we’re stronger now than we were an hour ago. And you know, my sisters and brothers, we’re not nearly as strong as we’re going to be. And the strength we have is the power of love. And the power of love you have received is from God, for God is love. So take the hand of one next to you now and join me in prayer on this “field of dreams” turned into God’s house of prayer: O Lord our God, we’re leaning on You today. You are our Tower of Strength, and we’re leaning on You. You are our Mighty Fortress, our God who is a Rock; in You do we stand. Those of us who bear the name of Christ know that You stood so tall when You stooped down to send a Son through death and life to bring us back together, and we lean on You today. O Tower of Strength, be with those who mourn the loss of loved ones; bring them closer to us day by day. O Heavenly Father, we pray at this time that You might extend Jacob’s ladder for those who ascended the stairways to save us, as others escaped the fire and flames. O Tower of Strength, open innocent and victimized hearts to the sacrifice of the Innocent One; pour Your consolation upon the traumatized, especially our children. O Heavenly Father, un-bind, un-fear, un-scorch, un-sear our souls; renew us in Your free Spirit. We’re leaning on You, our Tower of Strength. We find our refuge in the shadow of Your shelter. Lead us from this place--strong--to bring forth the power of Your love, wherever we are. In the precious name of Jesus. Amen.
Dr. Schulz correctly ruled that Rev. Benke was guilty of syncretism. Dr. Schulz was unjustly punished for that ruling. The details are available at Crisis In the LCMS
Boanerges said: So if Benke had prayed in an ecumenical group that consisted of say Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, ie: Christian denominations then Schulz wouldn't have accused Benke of "bending the knee to Baal". Am I reading this right?
Or if perhaps Benke had prayed something that spoke to the exclusivity of salvation alone through Christ then Schulz wouldn't have accused him. Perhaps that would have been considered appropriate?
Dr. Schulz did not accuse Rev. Benke. He ruled on charges brought by others. Dr. Schulz did find Rev. Benke guilty of unionism as well as syncretism since there were prayers by Methodists, Reform, Episcopalians, Orthodox, and Roman Catholics. This charge was upheld because a false impression of unity of doctrine with false teachers was given by his prayer.
With the addition now of at least part of the prayer that Benke prayed, it would appear that he at least gave the impression that those outside of Christ could be with God in death and the prayers of sinners, excluding the prayer of repentance and faith in Christ, would be heard by God. What I find unfortunate is the denominational mentality voiced against him, though doubtless he is subject to those over him. What Benke appears to have done is to sin against God and the Church; i.e., the body of Christ, not just his specific denomination. My criticism here is against what also appears to be the denomination's narrowness. That denomination is NOT "the" Church, but rather a very small part of Christ's Church in the world. Am I espousing modern ecumenicism? Hardly!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> But I do affirm that the Church consists of many denominations, churches and individuals throughout the entire world.
I don't understand what you mean by "denominational mentality". According LCMS rules, scripture is the sole standard by which all of its teachers are judged (Formula of Concord). The charges brought against Rev. Benke were based on scripture alone (e.g., Ex. 20:3; 1 Cor. 10:20, 21; 2 Cor. 6:14-18; etc.) not arbitrary synod by-laws.
The LCMS does not consider itself to be a real church. It is a voluntary synod of ministers and congregations who are in confessional agreement. It has no power to excommunicate or even defrock. The LCMS does have the power to suspend false teachers. When the LCMS overturned the Schulz suspension of a false teacher, the synod was acting contrary to Paul's instructions(2 Thes. 3:14, 15).
Dr. Schulz did not accuse Rev. Benke. He ruled on charges brought by others.
My mistake so Dr, Schulz served more as the prosecutor for the Synod. Or whatever is the proper term.
Quote
Dr. Schulz did find Rev. Benke guilty of unionism as well as syncretism since there were prayers by Methodists, Reform, Episcopalians, Orthodox, and Roman Catholics. This charge was upheld because a false impression of unity of doctrine with false teachers was given by his prayer.
Unionism? Am I understanding this correctly are you saying that Lutheran pastors are forbidden from praying with Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, etc. Lest they give the impression that the Lutherans hold to the same doctrines that the Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, ect. espouse? I must be mistaken it seems to me that you are suggesting that Lutherans are implying that they are the only true church. And to pray or do anything with any other denomination is wrong. I hope that I am mistaking what you are saying here. I would ask for more clarification at this point.
Peter
If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
My mistake so Dr, Schulz served more as the prosecutor for the Synod. Or whatever is the proper term.
Judge would be closer. He was chosen because, unlike the President and 1st VP, he had not publicly spoken on the Benke affair and was, therefore, considered unbiased.
Quote
Am I understanding this correctly are you saying that Lutheran pastors are forbidden from praying with Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, etc. Lest they give the impression that the Lutherans hold to the same doctrines that the Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, ect. espouse?
Not all prayer is forbidden but ecumenical prayers are usually made with the intent to show that doctrinal difference are not important. LCMS is very lax on enforcement of this. WELS and ELS are much more strict. They have broken off fellowship with LCMS because unionism is tolerated. And now syncretism is also tolerated. The only thing not tolerated is the bold witness for Christ of Dr. Shultz.
Quote
I must be mistaken it seems to me that you are suggesting that Lutherans are implying that they are the only true church.
A "true church" would be a church that teaches "sola scriptura" without any admixture of human doctrine. The marks of a true visible church are pure doctrine and administration of the sacraments in accordance with the command of Christ. If there are other true visible churches outside of Lutheranism, we are not aware of them. Churches who remain in the LCMS without confessional protest of the Benke affair can not be considered true visible churches.
Quote
And to pray or do anything with any other denomination is wrong.
Yes, if it means we must agree with a false confession or give the impression that we do. But we do pray and work with our dear Christian brothers who do not use ecumenicalism as a pretext for promoting false doctrine.
Last edited by speratus; Wed Feb 02, 200511:11 AM.
From Spurgeon's sermon, "The Joint Heirs and Their Divine Portion" :
Quote
Say not, 'There are giants in the land,' ye are strong enough to smite them. Say not, 'Lutheranism and Popery are mighty.' So they are, but he that is with you is mightier far. As Jonathan of old, with his armor, climbed up the steep place in the cleft of the rock and began to mow down his enemies, so, believer, alone or with your friend, as God has called you, climb up, for verily the possession is yours, and you may take it.
Does that sound like a man who considered the Lutheran Church to be a true church? I find his intolerance refreshing in an age of phony ecumenicalism.
speratus said: Does that sound like a man who considered the Lutheran Church to be a true church? I find his intolerance refreshing in an age of phony ecumenicalism.
And the majority of members here, at least those who profess to be Reformed would say, AMEN! We don't accept "phony ecumenicalism" either and often speak out against it. But Spurgeon never made the claim that the "Baptist Union" or the denomination he then belonged to at the time he made that statement was the ONLY TRUE CHURCH ON EARTH! And frankly, we do not and cannot accept the ridiculous claim that some make that their church/denomination is the ONLY true Church on the face of the earth. Neither extreme can be biblically defended, not to mention that such a claim is one which exhibits the claimant's pride, arrogance, ignorance and a schismatic agenda. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />
I agree. I do not make the claim that the Evangelical Lutheran Church is the "only true church on earth." It is merely the only true church on earth that I am aware of. The Reform Church does confess the five solas of the Reformation, man's total depravity, and unconditional election but errs with respect to the sacraments, the two natures of Christ, and predestination. All other denominations are hopelessly Pelagian.
Romans 16:17 says we should mark those who cause divisions and avoid them. 2 John 10 says we should not receive those who do not abide in the doctrine of Christ. Frankly, given the Reform teaching on "sola scriptura", I don't see how you can consider any known non-Reform denomination to be a true church.
speratus said: I agree. I do not make the claim that the Evangelical Lutheran Church is the "only true church on earth." It is merely the only true church on earth that I am aware of.
And how many times have you attended my Church? How many times have you visited Wes' Church? How many times have you visited Marie's Church? How many times have you been proven wrong on this forum? May I remind you that you are not God and are not all knowing <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" /> Just because the Lutheran Church you are aware of may be Evangelical, it gives you no right to make such an all encompassing statement. How many times and how often have you visited and judged EVERY EL Church?
Quote
speratus said:
The Reform Church does confess the five solas of the Reformation, man's total depravity, and unconditional election but errs with respect to the sacraments, the two natures of Christ, and predestination.
And YOUR proof is? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/broke.gif" alt="" />
God knows who the Invisible Church is and it is not done by denomination, or the popular vote of one named speratus. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />
Please post some substance and evidence with your reply!!! Please exegetically prove why and how I am wrong concerning the two natures of Christ, predestination, etc. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />
I believe you are mixing the one invisible church of pure saints known only to God which exists without any division and the many visible churches which are known by their outward marks (what they teach).
I am not all-knowing. I can only judge the churches I have come in contact with. The Reform churches do not have the outward marks of pure doctrine. The reasons are given in previous threads. If you really believe Reform doctrine, you must reach the opposite conclusion. Namely, that Lutheran churches do not have the outward marks of pure doctrine and, therefore, are not true churches.
speratus said: The Reform churches do not have the outward marks of pure doctrine.
Against my better judgment, I simply have to ask yet another question due to this bold statement. It would imply, of necessity, that the Lutheran church, but only the specific denomination you belong to, which comprises but a drop of people when compared to the whole visible church on earth, qualifies to be the "one true church on earth" (as best as you are able to discern), because it holds to "pure doctrine".
Thus my question: are you sincerely saying that your little denomination is the ONLY group wherein there is no error in doctrine? With the exception of the obnoxious "TR's" within the Reformed camp, no Reformed denomination I have ever encountered has been so foolish as to make that claim for themselves. If of course, your bold statement is in fact true, then the LORD GOD's intention of created a New Earth is one of sheer overkill. For truly, I seriously doubt there is going to be enough people, assuming that every single individual who has belonged to your denomination is a true believer, to populate an area larger than the state of Rhode Island! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />
Why is it that the cults all make the same claim that you are making? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" />
Faith alone justifies whether one belongs to a true church or a church where false doctrine is tolerated. You make the same error as the Papists in associating visible church membership with invisible church membership. Is that due to your doctrine of covenant?
There are only a few Lutheran churches scattered throughout the world who remain faithful to the Augsburg Confession. Most have signed an agreement with the AntiChrist that denies the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
My denomination, LCMS, is now officially heterodox because it tolerates the introduction of idolatry into worship by one of its ministers. However, there are "loyal soldiers" within the LCMS. These churches and individuals have signed statements of confessional protest. They have broken off fellowship with the main body according to 2 Thes. 3:14, 15. They expect persecution.
IMO, you are not sitting in a position to make such a statement as, "Reform churches do not have the outward marks of pure doctrine", because you do not know (1) what every Reformed Church believes (2) do not know what every individual in the invisible Church believes (3) you have not demonstrated a knowledge of what true doctirne is (4) you have not made any arguments from Scripture to support your statements as previousily requested.
1. By Reform Church, I am referring to churches which confess a historic Reform creed that denies: a. Baptism saves us; b. This is My Body which is given for you; c. In Him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily; d. He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world; e. Those justified by the law are fallen from grace. 2. Irrelevant. Saints may err if the foundation of justification by faith alone in Christ alone is not destroyed. 3. It is certainly your right to judge me a false teacher on the basis of scripture. Would you pray with a false teacher? Would you call a church that teaches these falsehoods a true church? 4. I could exegete dozens of scripture passages. And you could reply that none of them mean what they plainly teach. What would that accomplish other than leading us further off topic?
speratus said: 1. By Reform Church, I am referring to churches which confess a historic Reform creed that denies: a. Baptism saves us; b. This is My Body which is given for you; c. In Him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily; d. He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world; e. Those justified by the law are fallen from grace. 2. Irrelevant. Saints may err if the foundation of justification by faith alone in Christ alone is not destroyed. 3. It is certainly your right to judge me a false teacher on the basis of scripture. Would you pray with a false teacher? Would you call a church that teaches these falsehoods a true church? 4. I could exegete dozens of scripture passages. And you could reply that none of them mean what they plainly teach. What would that accomplish other than leading us further off topic?
Well your personal opinion proves nothing you have stated. Thus take one of the topics--let us say "In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" and exegete what is meant by it and where the whole Reformed Church errs in their interpretation. Please exegete the Scripture. And don't worry about it being off topic as it can be moved to a different thread if needed.
And yes, we have been praying for you for some time. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />
J_Edwards said: Well your personal opinion proves nothing you have stated. Thus take one of the topics--let us say "In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" and exegete what is meant by it and where the whole Reformed Church errs in their interpretation. Please exegete the Scripture. And don't worry about it being off topic as it can be moved to a different thread if needed.
Quote
Of the Lord's Supper, Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXIX. VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament,[13] do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.[14]VIII. Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament; yet, they receive not the thing signified thereby; but, by their unworthy coming thereunto, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation.
Quote
"Of the Person of Christ: A Sermon Study on Colossians 2:8-10", Joel Gerlach "From the controversy concerning the Holy Supper a disagreement has arisen…concerning the person of Christ and the two natures in Christ and their properties" (Formula of Concord, Epitome, VIII, para.1). Zwingli, Calvin, and their Crypto-Calvinistic sympathizers at Wittenberg subjected not only the Sacrament to their rationalistic methodology. They subjected the doctrine of the person of Christ to it as well. In that respect at least they were consistent. . . Calvin was insistent that Jesus was the God-man. But he was equally insistent that finitum non est capax infiniti. He therefore denied the communication of the divine attributes to the Savior's human nature. Thus according to Calvin, Jesus possesses divine attributes only in accord with His divine nature. The Christological propositions, "God is man" and "This man is God," are therefore invalid. (See Formula of Concord, Epitome VIII, para. 25, antithesis 6.) And the ascended Lord is limited by His human nature to a specific place at God's right hand. (See Formula of Concord, Epitome, VIII, para. 30, antithesis 11.) That kind of theologizing incensed Luther. Jesus does not make promises, Luther insisted, to be with us literally always and everywhere, and then not keep His promises. The almighty God who has assumed our human nature in the person of Christ has no problem whatsoever transcending the dimension and the limitations of time, space, and movement. So when the One who is sitting everywhere at the right hand of God's power says that He is giving us His real body and blood in the holy supper, that is precisely what He is doing. . .
Verse 9
What is it that makes Paul's pronouncement valid regarding the emptiness of the theosophists' philosophy? Two things. Because in Christ dwells bodily (swmatikw~v, corporeally) all the fulness of the Deity (qeo&thtov, abstract for qeo&v), and because (repeat the o#ti) in Him you have been made complete. And He, remember, is the One "who is the head of all rule and authority" (a)rxh=v kai\ e0cousi/av). So why look for something more? Why let anyone try to add to what the Savior offers when you are already complete in Him? "All the fulness of the Godhead" means exactly what it says. Fulness (to_ plh/rwma) includes all of God's attributes without exception. They all dwell bodily in Jesus Christ, not only in the Son of God (Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, para. 57), but also in the Son of Man. Paul is asserting the divine mystery that the divine attributes katoikei= in Jesus because of and in connection with His human nature. The indwelling of the attributes is corporeal (Luther, leibhaftig), not merely spiritual, "not in the spirit of Christ alone, but in his whole human nature" (Lenski). In Christology this verse is one of the primary passages which offers evidence for the doctrine of the communication of the attributes. Our particular concern is with the genus maiestaticum, especially with the communication of the divine omnipresence to the human nature of Jesus Christ. The Nestorian/Zwinglian error separated the Deity of Christ (together with all the divine attributes) from the human nature (the sw~ma) of Christ Jesus. Thus according to the Zwinglians, Jesus could not be present everywhere except in a spiritual sense to faith. That error obscures the truth that the body Jesus gave for us and the blood He shed for us on the cross redeemed us because all the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in that body and blood. His blood was "holy, precious blood" because it was divine blood (cf. Formula of Concord, Epitome, para. 14 also Luther in the Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, para. 44). The denial of the communicated omnipresence was at the bottom of the Reformed/Philippist denial of the real presence. That made Article VII (Formula of Concord) a necessity. That same denial also made Article VIII with its thorough treatment of the hypostatic union a necessity in the Formula.
I'm afraid that what you offered is not "exegesis", but nothing more than the recitation of the same errors which I have pointed out, e.g., the admixture of the divine nature of Christ with the human nature of Christ, to which Chalcedon rejects. While it is affirmed that the divine communicable attributes were given, the incommunicable attributes were not and could not have been given to the human nature. Gerlach's conclusions re: Col 2:9 are clearly "eisogesis" and cannot be found in the text regardless of how much gratuitous latitude might be allowed. Why not compare Gerlach's statement, assumed to be representative of the Lutheran position here:
In Christology this verse is one of the primary passages which offers evidence for the doctrine of the communication of the attributes. Our particular concern is with the genus maiestaticum, especially with the communication of the divine omnipresence to the human nature of Jesus Christ.
with that of the Chalcedon Creed's statement:
one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ;
The difference between the two is so obvious that no further comment need be added by me.
Secondly, to lump Calvin and Zwingli together into the same camp when it comes to the matter of the "real presence" and myriad other considerations of the Lord's Supper is simply ludicrous and ignorant. For even a novice reader of Calvin and Zwingli or simply knowing the history of the the two in regard to this issue knows that the two men were poles apart. Here are three sources on Calvin's views on the Supper:
Yes, I read those two articles and a third where Calvin set forth his view as a sort of compromise between Zwingli and Luther. We do not consider the difference significant since both Reform camps deny the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the unity of the person.
However, if the difference was really significant, why don't the Reform split over this issue? From your previous statements, you appear to be Zwinglian. Yet, you confess the Calvinist WCF?
The Belgic Confession (in agreement with the Book of Concord BTW) says the marks of the true church are, "pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church-- and no one ought to be separated from it." If no one should be separated from the true church, how can a Zwinglian worship (much less take communion) at a Calvinist church and vice-versa?
Quote
Article 29: The Marks of the True Church
We believe that we ought to discern diligently and very carefully, by the Word of God, what is the true church-- for all sects in the world today claim for themselves the name of "the church."
We are not speaking here of the company of hypocrites who are mixed among the good in the church and who nonetheless are not part of it, even though they are physically there. But we are speaking of distinguishing the body and fellowship of the true church from all sects that call themselves "the church."
The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church-- and no one ought to be separated from it.
As for those who can belong to the church, we can recognize them by the distinguishing marks of Christians: namely by faith, and by their fleeing from sin and pursuing righteousness, once they have received the one and only Savior, Jesus Christ. They love the true God and their neighbors, without turning to the right or left, and they crucify the flesh and its works.
Though great weakness remains in them, they fight against it by the Spirit all the days of their lives, appealing constantly to the blood, suffering, death, and obedience of the Lord Jesus, in whom they have forgiveness of their sins, through faith in him.
As for the false church, it assigns more authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God; it does not want to subject itself to the yoke of Christ; it does not administer the sacraments as Christ commanded in his Word; it rather adds to them or subtracts from them as it pleases; it bases itself on men, more than on Jesus Christ; it persecutes those who live holy lives according to the Word of God and who rebuke it for its faults, greed, and idolatry.
These two churches are easy to recognize and thus to distinguish from each other.
As Belgic Confession states, the false church persecutes those who live holy lives and who rebuke it for its faults, greed, and idolatry (e.g., Dr. Shultz).
speratus said: However, if the difference was really significant, why don't the Reform split over this issue? From your previous statements, you appear to be Zwinglian. Yet, you confess the Calvinist WCF?
I do not embrace the Zwinglian view. I've never said that I did nor even hinted that I even sympathized with that view. On the matter of the Lord's Supper, I find no differences between what I hold and what the WCF states. You really need to get out of the house more. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
Quote
Lastly you said: As Belgic Confession states, the false church persecutes those who live holy lives and who rebuke it for its faults, greed, and idolatry (e.g., Dr. Shultz).
But I hope you aren't going to tell me that you: 1) are applying a statement from one of those "false churches" you denigrate to your "only true church on earth"? Wouldn't that be hypocritical? 2) honestly believe that every statement ever made by anyone or any group, denomination, etc., which contradicts what you and/or your denomination believe is persecuting the "one true church on earth"?
QUESTION: Do you believe that your denomination is infallible? If not, could you point out which doctrine(s) you believe are in error?
Sorry, I guess I misunderstood your comment, "I understand the difference between Luther's view re: Christ's presence in the Supper compared to Calvin's and I reject both! I believe that neither went far enough from Rome in their respective positions. For me, Bullinger expressed most correctly what Scripture teaches on this issue..." I'll go back and read Bullinger.
1) No. A church does not forfeit its orthodox character through the casual intrusion of errors, provided these are combated and eventually removed by means of doctrinal discipline. Acts 20:29-31; 1 Tim. 1: 3. After Dr. Benke admonished Rev. Benke and suspended him for teaching contrary to scripture and the Book of Concord, he was not removed from the synod but he was, instead, vindicated by the governing convention. At that point, the LCMS became a false church body.
2)Statements are not persecution. Burning people at the stake (Hus), firing them from their job(Schulz), etc. is persecution.
My denomination is not infallible. By clearing Rev. Benke of all charges, they falsely teach that introduction of idolatry into worship is a matter of indifference. Just as in Reformation times, it is a time of confession.
Quote
Formula of Concord, Solid DeclarationWe believe, teach, and confess also that at the time of confession, when the enemies of God's Word desire to suppress the pure doctrine of the holy Gospel, the entire congregation of God, yea, every Christian, but especially the ministers of the Word, as the leaders of the congregation of God are bound by God's Word to confess freely and openly the doctrine, and what belongs to the whole of religion, not only in words, but also in works and with deeds; and that then, in this case, even in such adiaphora, they must not yield to the adversaries, or permit these to be forced upon them by their enemies, whether by violence or cunning, to the detriment of the true worship of God and the introduction and sanction of idolatry.
Statements are not persecution. Burning people at the stake (Hus), firing them from their job(Schulz), etc. is persecution.
And what of your continued false theology above? speratus you are now in the same company with other false theolgians....
Matthew 5:11 says, “Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.” Apparently Jesus understands “statements” as persecution. In the above verse “persecution” referred to takes various forms: i.e. reproach, slander, etc.
Here is a quote from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia as to the definition of persecution.
Quote
Various Forms:
It would take different forms, ranging through every possible variety, from false accusation to the infliction of death, beyond which, He pointed out (Matthew 10:28; Luke 12:4), persecutors are unable to go. The methods of persecution which were employed by the Jews, and also by the heathen against the followers of Christ, were such as these: (1) Men would revile them and would say all manner of evil against them falsely, for Christ's sake (Matthew 5:11). (2) Contempt and disparagement: "Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a demon?" (John 8:48); "If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more them of his household!" (Matthew 10:25). (3) Being, solely on account of their loyalty to Christ, forcibly separated from the company and the society of others, and expelled from the synagogues or other assemblies for the worship of God: "Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake" (Luke 6:22); "They shall put you out of the synagogues" (John 16:2). (4) Illegal arrest and spoliation of goods, and death itself.
All these various methods, used by the persecutor, were foretold, and all came to pass. It was the fear of apprehension and death that led the eleven disciples to forsake Jesus in Gethsemane and to flee for their lives. Jesus often forewarned them of the severity of the persecution which they would need to encounter if they were loyal to Him: "The hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you shall think that he offereth service unto God" (John 16:2); "I send unto you prophets .... some of them shall ye kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city" (Matthew 23:34).
In the Case of Jesus:
In the case of Christ Himself, persecution took the form of attempts to entrap Him in His speech (Matthew 22:15); the questioning of His authority (Mark 11:28); illegal arrest; the heaping of every insult upon Him as a prisoner; false accusation; and a violent and most cruel death.
You need to ex-communicate yourself for once again spreading false doctrine! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />
speratus said: Of course, slander, reproach, etc. are persecution.
I am glad you agree, but that was not your statement. You specified a definition of persecution as being "Statements are not persecution. Burning people at the stake (Hus), firing them from their job(Schulz), etc. is persecution."
Quote
But Pilgrim was referring to contradictory statements of doctrine not personal attack.
Is it not personal to God when you defame and mis-state His holy doctrine and make it profane? Is it possible to blasphemy God's doctrine and thus persecute God and be punished? Can Christians be persecuted by blaspheme?
Quote
1 Timothy 6:1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
Revelation 13:6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
Hebrews 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
False doctrine persecutes not only God, but His children (His Church) as well.
I am glad you agree, but that was not your statement. You specified a definition of persecution as being "Statements are not persecution. Burning people at the stake (Hus), firing them from their job(Schulz), etc. is persecution."
Verbal persecution falls under etc.
Quote
Is it not personal to God when you defame and mis-state His holy doctrine and make it profane? Is it possible to blasphemy God's doctrine and thus persecute God and be punished? Can Christians be persecuted by blaspheme?
Yes. Have I said anything to the contrary?
Quote
False doctrine persecutes not only God, but His children (His Church) as well.
I agree. But let's return to the context of Pilgrim's question, do you "honestly believe that every statement ever made by anyone or any group, denomination, etc., which contradicts what you and/or your denomination believe is persecuting the 'one true church on earth'?"
If you have read the preceding posts, you understand that Pilgrim was not referring to the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church but my view of true visible churches. When representatives of true churches and false churches meet to freely discuss theological issues without rancor or slander (say on a discussion board called "The Highway"), there is no persecution of the true churches.
I was reading Luther's reply to his Papal excommunication for teaching, "The burning of heretics is contrary to the will of the Holy Spirit." As might be expected, he defended himself with scripture. But, I found it interesting that he also said "from the beginning until now the Church has never yet burned a heretic, and never will." Only false churches would perform such acts not a true visible church.
We do not consider the difference significant since both Reform camps deny the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the unity of the person.
In what does the "Real Presence" consist, Speratus? To say that Christ's body and blood are present with the bread and wine is not the same as to say that they are the bread and wine. The phrase in Latin, hoc est corpus meum ("this is my body"), which Luther insisted on does not indicate that the body is present with the bread. The Romanists go still further and say that the bread and wine become the body and blood, but even that is not to say that they are the body and blood, for Christ never said they the bread and wine become anything, but that they already are.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
When representatives of true churches and false churches meet to freely discuss theological issues without rancor or slander (say on a discussion board called "The Highway"), there is no persecution of the true churches.
Where we differ at is you see the Church as a building or denomination and thus see no persecution, and Scripture and I see it as people, individuals (we are the body, Christ is the head, etc.), that may belong to a denomination or worship in a building, etc. but none-the-less "the real Church" is persecuted...., and if "one member suffereth, all the members suffer with it; or one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and severally members thereof," etc. (1 Cor 12:26-27).
We do not consider the difference significant since both Reform camps deny the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the unity of the person.
In what does the "Real Presence" consist, Speratus? To say that Christ's body and blood are present with the bread and wine is not the same as to say that they are the bread and wine. The phrase in Latin, hoc est corpus meum ("this is my body"), which Luther insisted on does not indicate that the body is present with the bread. The Romanists go still further and say that the bread and wine become the body and blood, but even that is not to say that they are the body and blood, for Christ never said they the bread and wine become anything, but that they already are.
We know from scripture that the bread and wine remain unchanged and that the body and the blood of Christ are distributed to and received by those who eat and drink. In the communication of the divine attributes, the body and blood of Christ are present in, with, and under the bread and wine in the incomprehensible spiritual mode in which He neither occupies nor vacates space.
Quote
Formula of Concord quoting Luther, the incomprehensible, spiritual mode, according to which He neither occupies nor vacates space, but penetrates all creatures wherever He pleases ; as, to make an imperfect comparison, my sight penetrates and is in air, light, or water, and does not occupy or vacate space; as a sound or tone penetrates and is in air or water or board and wall, and also does not occupy or vacate space; likewise, as light and heat penetrate and are in air, water, glass, crystal, and the like, and also do not vacate or occupy space; and much more of the like . This mode He used when He rose from the closed (and sealed) sepulcher, and passed through the closed door (to His disciples), and in the bread and wine in the Holy Supper, and, as it is believed, when He was born of His mother.
CovenantInBlood said: In what does the "Real Presence" consist, Speratus? To say that Christ's body and blood are present with the bread and wine is not the same as to say that they are the bread and wine. The phrase in Latin, hoc est corpus meum ("this is my body"), which Luther insisted on does not indicate that the body is present with the bread. The Romanists go still further and say that the bread and wine become the body and blood, but even that is not to say that they are the body and blood, for Christ never said they the bread and wine become anything, but that they already are.
We know from scripture that the bread and wine remain unchanged and that the body and the blood of Christ are distributed to and received by those who eat and drink. In the communication of the divine attributes, the body and blood of Christ are present in, with, and under the bread and wine in the incomprehensible spiritual mode in which He neither occupies nor vacates space.
To quote an insistent Luther, "hoc EST"! Scripture knows nothing of Christ's body being present "in, with, and under" the bread and wine. Christ said, "This IS My body"! Nowhere did He say, "My body is present in, with, and under". If you want to treat the text as literally as possible, then you must consider the bread itself to be the body, and the wine itself to be the blood.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
To quote an insistent Luther, "hoc EST"! Scripture knows nothing of Christ's body being present "in, with, and under" the bread and wine. Christ said, "This IS My body"! Nowhere did He say, "My body is present in, with, and under".
By the same logic, scripture knows nothing of the hypostatic union. The formula; in, with, and under; to describe the nature of the sacramental union is employed because many falsely accuse us of consubstantiation.
The papists correctly accept "This is My Body" literally but ignore the other text that says the bread remains bread. The Zwinglians do the very opposite. The Calvinists attempt to reconcile the two texts by separating Christ from His humanity contrary to the texts that speak of the unity of the person.
Quote
If you want to treat the text as literally as possible, then you must consider the bread itself to be the body, and the wine itself to be the blood.
No. Saying the bread is literally Christ's body would be adding to the text. The text literally says that which is distributed and received is Christ's body.
Sorry, Speratus. "This is my body." Taken literally, that does not say "that which is distributed and recieved is Christ's body." Christ said of the bread, "this is my body."
By the way, I'm Zwinglian when is comes to communion; just trying to point out an inconsistency here.
You are mistaken. Christ did not say the bread was His body.
"Take eat; this is my body" does not mean "This is not my body". Nor does it mean "This bread has become my body." Nor does it mean "This is my body but only in a spiritual sense." "Take eat; this is my body" means that Christ gives us His natural body to be eaten.
Luther would not have any fellowship, let alone communion, with Papists/Zwinglians/Calvinists. This intolerant attitude is held by all confessional Lutherans (Augsburg Confession, Formula of Concord, etc.). Do Zwinglians and Calvinists share fellowship and/or communion despite their differences?
The Calvinists attempt to reconcile the two texts by separating Christ from His humanity contrary to the texts that speak of the unity of the person.
Calvinists do not separate Christ from His humanity, and you have persisted in willful misrepresentation. We say that Christ is one person with two natures, and that these natures, while joined in one person, remain distinct and unmixed. Thus the humanity of Christ is not divine, and the divinity of Christ is not humane. The communicatio idiomatum means that the attributes of both human and divine natures can be ascribed to the PERSON of Christ, as He consists of two natures; it does not mean that the each nature can be said to possess the attributes of the other!
Quote
No. Saying the bread is literally Christ's body would be adding to the text. The text literally says that which is distributed and received is Christ's body.
Sophistry, Speratus, mere sophistry! The bread and wine are distributed, and they are respectively said to BE the body and blood of Christ. If you insist on a literal interpretation as do the Romanists, you had better insist on a truly literal interpretation, and not some "half-way there" explanation.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
"Take eat; this is my body" does not mean "This is not my body". Nor does it mean "This bread has become my body." Nor does it mean "This is my body but only in a spiritual sense." "Take eat; this is my body" means that Christ gives us His natural body to be eaten.
With all due respect to Christ, do you really believe Jesus is a cannibalistic vampire eating His own body and drinking His own blood?
Quote
Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mark 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
Do you agree with Oral Roberts spoting a 900 foot Jesus straddling a hospital complex he was building next to his university. If not, just how big is Jesus' body? How many pints of blood does He really have? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />
Jesus is also called a "vine,", "the door," the "morning star," (may only be eaten for breakfast) the "cornerstone," the "lamb," the "fountain," the "rock," etc. Are we to take these "literally" too?
speratus said: You are mistaken. Christ did not say the bread was His body.
Yes he did. He said, of the bread, "This is my body." In the past tense, he said the bread was his body. That's simple grammar.
Quote
Nor does it mean "This is my body but only in a spiritual sense." "Take eat; this is my body" means that Christ gives us His natural body to be eaten.
You'll have to clarify yourself here. What do you mean by "natural body?" This sounds an awful lot like the Catholic doctrine. Surely you don'e embrace transubstantiation? Because it sounds an awful lot like it.
Also, in an above post, you seemed to imply you reject consubstantiation. Perhaps you could explain to us in detail what you do believe?
Calvinists do not separate Christ from His humanity, and you have persisted in willful misrepresentation. We say that Christ is one person with two natures, and that these natures, while joined in one person, remain distinct and unmixed. Thus the humanity of Christ is not divine, and the divinity of Christ is not humane. The communicatio idiomatum means that the attributes of both human and divine natures can be ascribed to the PERSON of Christ, as He consists of two natures; it does not mean that the each nature can be said to possess the attributes of the other.
The attributes of the one nature are never mingled and never become the attributes of the other nature. However, in the unity of person, what is attributed to the one nature can be attributed to the other nature.
The implications of the erroneous Calvinist hypostatic doctrine extend beyond the meaning the sacrament. For example, their doctrine of atonement is also faulty. If a mere man dies for us, we remain lost. But, in the communication of the attributes, God suffered, God died, God's blood saves us.
Quote
Sophistry, Speratus, mere sophistry!
To the contrary doctrinal error occurs when the papist/zwinglian/calvinist sophistry enters in. Christ's words are plain and self-evident.
Henry said: You'll have to clarify yourself here. What do you mean by "natural body?" This sounds an awful lot like the Catholic doctrine. Surely you don'e embrace transubstantiation? Because it sounds an aswful lot like it.
Also, in an above post, you seemed to inply you jecect consubstantiation. Perhaps you could explain to us in detail what you do believe?
Yes, I will respond in detail to these baseless charges of transubstantiation, consubstantiation, and cannibalism!
Quote
Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration
Accordingly, they hold and teach that with the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present, offered, and received. And although they believe in no transubstantiation, that is, an essential transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, nor hold that the body and blood of Christ are included in the bread localiter, that is, locally, or are otherwise permanently united therewith apart from the use of the Sacrament, yet they concede that through the sacramental union the bread is the body of Christ, etc. [that when the bread is offered, the body of Christ is at the same time present, and is truly tendered]. For apart from the use, when the bread is laid aside and preserved in the sacramental vessel [the pyx], or is carried about in the procession and exhibited, as is done in popery, they do not hold that the body of Christ is present.... For the reason why, in addition to the expressions of Christ and St. Paul (the bread in the Supper is the body of Christ or the communion of the body of Christ), also the forms: under the bread, with the bread, in the bread [the body of Christ is present and offered], are employed, is that by means of them the papistical transubstantiation may be rejected and the sacramental union of the unchanged essence of the bread and of the body of Christ indicated; 36] just as the expression, Verbum caro factum est, The Word was made flesh [John 1, 14], is repeated and explained by the equivalent expressions: The Word dwelt among us; likewise [Col. 2, 9]: In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily; likewise [Acts 10, 38]: God was with Him; likewise [2 Cor. 5, 19]: God was in Christ, and the like; namely, that the divine essence is not changed into the human nature, but the two natures, unchanged, are personally united. [These phrases repeat and declare the expression of John, above mentioned, namely, that by the incarnation the divine essence is not changed into the human nature, but that the two natures without confusion are personally united.] 37] Even as many eminent ancient teachers, Justin, Cyprian, Augustine, Leo, Gelasius, Chrysostom and others, use this simile concerning the words of Christ's testament: This is My body, that just as in Christ two distinct, unchanged natures are inseparably united, so in the Holy Supper the two substances, the natural bread and the true natural body of Christ, are present together here upon earth in the appointed administration of the Sacrament. 38] Although this union of the body and blood of Christ with the bread and wine is not a personal union, as that of the two natures in Christ, but as Dr. Luther and our theologians, in the frequently mentioned Articles of Agreement [Formula of Concord] in the year 1536 and in other places call it sacramentatem unionem, that is, a sacramental union, by which they wish to indicate that, although they also employ the formas: in pane, sub pane, cum pane, that is, these distinctive modes of speech: in the bread, under the bread, with the bread, yet they have received the words of Christ properly and as they read, and have understood the proposition, that is, the words of Christ's testament: Hoc est corpus meum, This is My body... For in view of the circumstances this command evidently cannot be understood otherwise than of oral eating and drinking, however, not in a gross, carnal, Capernaitic, but in a supernatural, incomprehensible way; 65] to which afterwards the other command adds still another and spiritual eating, when the Lord Christ says further: This do in remembrance of Me, where He requires faith [which is the spiritual partaking of Christ's body). 66] Therefore all the ancient Christian teachers expressly, and in full accord with the entire holy Christian Church, teach, according to these words of the institution of Christ and the explanation of St. Paul, that the body of Christ is not only received spiritually by faith, which occurs also outside of [the use of] the Sacrament, but also orally, not only by believing and godly, but also by unworthy, unbelieving, false, and wicked Christians.
The attributes of the one nature are never mingled and never become the attributes of the other nature. However, in the unity of person, what is attributed to the one nature can be attributed to the other nature.
Will you say then that the divine nature of Christ is therefore finite, physical, and that it needed to grow in wisdom, even as the human nature? What is attributed to one nature can be attributed to the Person of Christ, as He consists of two natures. However, the divine is not human and the human is not divine.
Quote
The implications of the erroneous Calvinist hypostatic doctrine extend beyond the meaning the sacrament. For example, their doctrine of atonement is also faulty. If a mere man dies for us, we remain lost. But, in the communication of the attributes, God suffered, God died, God's blood saves us. If a mere man dies for us, we remain lost. But, in the communication of the attributes, God suffered, God died, God's blood saves us.
Christ did not die in His divinity, but in His humanity. To say that He died in His divinity requires that the nature of the divine be mutable, i.e., subject to change. This is impossible.
From your posts, it looks like you don't concider Calvinists to be Christians. If that is the case, I would have to conclude that you are here to set us straight.
CovenantInBlood said: Will you say then that the divine nature of Christ is therefore finite, physical, and that it needed to grow in wisdom, even as the human nature?
The attributes of the one nature never become the attributes of the other nature. The following summary gives the correct doctrine of the hypostatic union.
Quote
Formula of Concord, Epitome, To explain this controversy, and settle it according to the guidance [analogy] of our Christian faith, our doctrine, faith, and confession is as follows:
5] 1. That the divine and human natures in Christ are personally united, so that there are not two Christs, one the Son of God, the other the Son of man, but that one and the same is the Son of God and Son of man, Luke 1, 35; Rom. 9, 5.
6] 2. We believe, teach, and confess that the divine and human natures are not mingled into one substance, nor the one changed into the other, but that each retains its own essential properties, which [can] never become the properties of the other nature.
7] 3. The properties of the divine nature are: to be almighty, eternal, infinite, and to be, according to the property of its nature and its natural essence, of itself, everywhere present, to know everything, etc.; which never become properties of the human nature.
8] 4. The properties of the human nature are: to be a corporeal creature, to be flesh and blood, to be finite and circumscribed, to suffer, to die, to ascend and descend, to move from one place to another, to suffer hunger, thirst, cold, heat, and the like; which never become properties of the divine nature.
9] 5. As the two natures are united personally, i. e., in one person, we believe, teach, and confess that this union is not such a copulation and connection that neither nature has anything in common with the other personally, i.e . because of the personal union, as when two boards are glued together, where neither gives anything to the other or takes anything from the other. But here is the highest communion, which God truly has with the [assumed] man, from which personal union, and the highest and ineffable communion resulting therefrom, there flows everything human that is said and believed concerning God, and everything divine that is said and believed concerning the man Christ; as the ancient teachers of the Church explained this union and communion of the natures by the illustration of iron glowing with fire, and also by the union of body and soul in man.
10] 6. Hence we believe, teach, and confess that God is man and man is God, which could not be if the divine and human natures had in deed and truth absolutely no communion with one another.
11] For how could the man, the son of Mary, in truth be called or be God, or the Son of God the Most High, if His humanity were not personally united with the Son of God, and He thus had realiter, that is, in deed and truth, nothing in common with Him except only the name of God?
12] 7. Hence we believe, teach, and confess that Mary conceived and bore not a mere man and no more, but the true Son of God; therefore she also is rightly called and truly is the mother of God.
13] 8. Hence we also believe, teach, and confess that it was not a mere man who suffered, died, was buried, descended to hell, arose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and was raised to the majesty and almighty power of God for us, but a man whose human nature has such a profound [close], ineffable union and communion with the Son of God that it is [has become] one person with Him.
14] 9. Therefore the Son of God truly suffered for us, however, according to the property of the human nature which He assumed into the unity of His divine person and made His own, so that He might be able to suffer and be our High Priest for our reconciliation with God, as it is written 1 Cor. 2, 8: They have crucfied the Lord of glory. And Acts 20, 28: We are purchased with God's blood.
15] 10. Hence we believe, teach, and confess that the Son of Man is realiter, that is, in deed and truth, exalted according to His human nature to the right hand of the almighty majesty and power of God, because He [that man] was assumed into God when He was conceived of the Holy Ghost in His mother's womb, and His human nature was personally united with the Son of the Highest.
16] 11. This majesty He [Christ] always had according to the personal union, and yet He abstained from it in the state of His humiliation, and on this account truly increased in all wisdom and favor with God and men; therefore He exercised this majesty, not always, but when [as often as] it pleased Him, until after His resurrection He entirely laid aside the form of a servant, but not the [human] nature, and was established in the full use, manifestation, and declaration of the divine majesty, and thus entered into His glory, Phil. 2, 6ff , so that now not only as God, but also as man He knows all things, can do all things, is present with all creatures, and has under His feet and in His hands everything that is in heaven and on earth and under the earth, as He Himself testifies Matt. 28, 18; John 13, 3: All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth. And St. Paul says Eph. 4, 10: He ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things. And this His power, He, being present, can exercise everywhere, and to Him everything is possible and everything is known.
17] 12. Hence He also is able and it is very easy for Him to impart, as one who is present, His true body and blood in the Holy Supper, not according to the mode or property of the human nature, but according to the mode and property of the right hand of God, as Dr. Luther says in accordance with our Christian faith for children, which presence (of Christ in the Holy Supper] is not [physical or] earthly, nor Capernaitic; nevertheless it is true and substantial, as the words of His testament read: This is, is, is My body, etc.
18] By this our doctrine, faith, and confession the person of Christ is not divided, as it was by Nestorius, who denied the communicatio idiomatum, that is, the true communion of the properties of both natures in Christ, and thus divided the person, as Luther has explained in his book Concerning Councils. Neither are the natures together with their properties confounded with one another [or mingled] into one essence (as Eutyches erred); nor is the human nature in the person of Christ denied or annihilated; nor is either nature changed into the other; but Christ is and remains to all eternity God and man in one undivided person, which, next to the Holy Trinity, is, as the Apostle testifies, 1 Tim. 3, 16, the highest mystery, upon which our only consolation, life, and salvation depends.
From your posts, it looks like you don't concider Calvinists to be Christians. If that is the case, I would have to conclude that you are here to set us straight.
Tom
I consider Calvinists to be Christians even though their Christology is messed up. Of course, I also consider Arminians and Papists to be Christians even though their confessions deny justification by faith alone in Christ alone.
I am here to learn as much as possible about Calvinism not to teach. The effect of the modern Reform Church on Lutherans is profound and needs to be understood to properly understand modern Lutheranism.
After this thread, I will probably return to reading mode.
The attributes of the one nature never become the attributes of the other nature. The following summary gives the correct doctrine of the hypostatic union.
Indeed, they do not! That is exactly why Christ's body is not ubiquitous!
Quote
7] 3. The properties of the divine nature are: to be almighty, eternal, infinite, and to be, according to the property of its nature and its natural essence, of itself, everywhere present, to know everything, etc.; which never become properties of the human nature.
8] 4. The properties of the human nature are: to be a corporeal creature, to be flesh and blood, to be finite and circumscribed, to suffer, to die, to ascend and descend, to move from one place to another, to suffer hunger, thirst, cold, heat, and the like; which never become properties of the divine nature.
Marvellous! But then they turn around and say that the human nature is no longer finite and circumscribed or located in one place or another!
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
No, they say He is present, not according to the mode or property of human nature which remains unchanged, but according to mode and property of the right hand of God.
Quote
17] 12. Hence He also is able and it is very easy for Him to impart, as one who is present, His true body and blood in the Holy Supper, not according to the mode or property of the human nature, but according to the mode and property of the right hand of God, as Dr. Luther says in accordance with our Christian faith for children, which presence (of Christ in the Holy Supper] is not [physical or] earthly, nor Capernaitic; nevertheless it is true and substantial, as the words of His testament read: This is, is, is My body, etc.
Are Calvinists really consistent regarding no communication of divine attributes? If so, how can the atonement be of infinite worth? Or, is it just sufficient for a few elect?
speratus said: Are Calvinists really consistent regarding no communication of divine attributes? If so, how can the atonement be of infinite worth? Or, is it just sufficient for a few elect?
1) Consistency: That would depend upon which Calvinist you talked to. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
2) Sufficiency: Haven't we hashed this topic out previously? even more than once? The sufficiency of the atonement, if it is in fact a vicarious, substitutionary atonement, of necessity only applies to the elect. The atonement of the Lord Christ actually and infallibly secured the salvation of ALL for whom He died; i.e., all those who the Father gave Him. (Jh 6:37-39; 10:11; cf. Ezk 34:12; Heb 13:20) For a defense of the biblical doctrine of the sufficiency of the atonement, also see here:
Lastly, IF <---------= you desire to reply/continue the subject of the "sufficiency and/or efficacy" of the atonement, please start a new thread. Otherwise, it will be off-topic for this thread and your reply will be removed.
No, they say He is present, not according to the mode or property of human nature which remains unchanged, but according to mode and property of the right hand of God.
1) What, exactly, does that mean? 2) Scripture?
Quote
Are Calvinists really consistent regarding no communication of divine attributes? If so, how can the atonement be of infinite worth? Or, is it just sufficient for a few elect?
The atonement applies ONLY to the elect. It does not extend to anyone else.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
1. There is a difference in mode between His comprehensible, bodily mode according to the property of human nature which we can perceive with our senses and His incomprehensible, spiritual mode according to the property of the right hand of God which is not perceived by human senses. The proof of this is that the disciples could see only bread. Even today, those of us who receive the Lord's body see, feel, and taste only bread. But we know that His body is given and eaten by the disciples and by those who do not change His word because Christ does not lie or deceive. 2. 1 Cor. 11
The sufficiency of the atonement is outside the scope of this thread. I have my answer although my question was wrongly asked (I should have said human attributes not divine attributes). At least one Calvinist (Bronson) believes in the communication of human attributes, "God Himself, the Sovereign and the Judge, put Himself in our place on the tree and died for us." (The Extent of the Atonement)
Your doctrine DEMANDS the simultaneous presence of Christ’s human body in numerous locations (ubiquity). Martin Luther (ML) formulated the doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ’s human body. According to ML and the Lutheran Church (LC), there is a “real presence” that is consistent with their doctrines of a corporeal bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist elements. Please note, that the RCC and the LC admit that Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist is intangible and invisible, yet they both claim that it is a corporeal bodily presence. The difficulty is that NEITHER church can begin to explain precisely what an intangible corporeal presence is, nor can they explain what an intangible and invisible “body” is and how such a body is distinguishable from the spirit. They cannot explain how an intangible and invisible presence of Christ is distinguishable from a spiritual presence of Christ. They cannot do this because they cannot define body as opposed to spirit, or corporeal as opposed to incorporeal, in a way that is also consistent with their doctrine of bodily presence. If they define corporeal in a way that is distinguishable from incorporeal, that definition is also applicable to their doctrine of corporeal presence. The only way they can maintain their doctrine of a bodily corporeal presence is to define those words in a way that is indistinguishable from their opposites. The result is an utterly confusing and self-contradictory doctrine that renders human language (i.e. please note this is the language that God has chosen to communicate to us in) utterly meaningless. This is what William and other have tried to convey to you.
One of the major faults of the RCC and LC is they fail to see the historical context of the meal itself. During the Passover meal, Jesus took the bread, He blessed it, He then broke it, and then He gave the bread to the disciples (Matt 26). As Jesus gave His disciple the bread He said, “this is my body.” The RCC and others interpret this too literalistically, while others interpret it too symbolically.
However, what is the “context” of the statement given? Normally, the Passover liturgy would include the following words: “This is the bread of affliction which our ancestors ate when they came from the land of Egypt.” Now of course the Jews did not believe they were actually eating the “very same pieces” of bread that their ancestors ate on the night of the first Passover. The main point of contact is NOT between “this bread” and “that bread,” rather these words point, by a figure of speech, to a “real participation” by the Jews in the act of redemption that their ancestors experienced firsthand. Thus, the words of the Passover liturgy communicated to each generation of Jews that they were partakers of the act of the redemption of God had accomplished when He brought their ancestors out of Egypt—the passage of time did not alter the oneness of the covenant people of God…..
While not a perfect illustration, the next time you show a photograph of yourself to someone you could say something like “this is me.” What would you really mean? Is the photograph literally the person? Are you in, with, and under the photograph? The context of the verses in question do not call for the RCC or LC interpretation of Scripture. The words Jesus spoke did not indicate that the bread in His hand was His very body any more than the words of the Jews spoke indicated that the bread they held was the very bread eaten by their ancestors. In BOTH cases a figure of speech is being used to indicate another connection. Jesus is also called a "vine,", "the door," the "morning star," the "cornerstone," the "lamb," the "fountain," the "rock," etc. Are we to take these "literally" too? Is Jesus "in, with, and under" these?
As Christians we participate in the benefits of Jesus’ act of redemption by virtue of union with Him to the degree that Paul can say that Christians have been crucified and died with Christ (Romans 6:6-8). Have you died and been crucified with Christ? Do you literally have the marks of crucifixion on your body (Jesus still does)? In the Lord’s Supper, Christians partake of the true Passover lamb and the benefits of His great redemptive act on the Cross. We are united to Him and are seen “in Him.”
Please read the book: Given for You, by Keith Mathison. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cheers2.gif" alt="" />
speratus said: There is a difference in mode between His comprehensible, bodily mode according to the property of human nature which we can perceive with our senses and His incomprehensible, spiritual mode according to the property of the right hand of God which is not perceived by human senses. The proof of this is that the disciples could see only bread. Even today, those of us who receive the Lord's body see, feel, and taste only bread. But we know that His body is given and eaten by the disciples and by those who do not change His word because Christ does not lie or deceive.
You prove your point by assuming it to be true in the first place. Very, very poor argumentation, Speratus! If the mode in which His body is present in the Lord's Supper is by the "incomprehensible, spiritual mode according to the property of the right hand of God," and NOT by the "comprehensible, bodily mode according to the property of human nature," then how do you say that His BODILY, HUMAN NATURE is present in the bread??? Your doctrine is self-defeating and destroys the distinction between the human and divine natures in the Person of Christ. Not to mention that it is simply ridiculous to say that if His flesh is not literally present in the bread, then Christ is a liar! That's as silly as saying that since Christ is not literally a lamb, He's a liar!
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
The RCC and LC have a similar view of the real presence only if you assume that LC teaches consubstantiation which our confessions and I have repeatedly denied. The Roman Church teaches that the whole Christ is permanently present apart from Christ's institution, is in a comprehensible mode that occupies physical space, and that only the accidents of bread and wine remain. The LC teaches a sacramental union of the body and blood in, with, and under the bread and wine with the mode of His presence being the same mode He used when He passed through the midst of the crowd, left the sealed tomb, and entered a closed room. I see no connection.
speratus said: The LC teaches a sacramental union of the body and blood in, with, and under the bread and wine with the mode of His presence being the same mode He used when He passed through the midst of the crowd, left the sealed tomb, and entered a closed room. I see no connection.
speratus,
That may satisfy your own conscience as to how the LC differs from the RCC. But it certainly doesn't justify the LC's view according to the Scripture. The examples you provided above, e.g., Jesus "passing through the midst of the crowd, left the sealed tomb," etc., cannot explain how the resurrected Christ can be present in the bread and wine in 100's of places simultaneously. For the resurrected Christ, the PERSON of Christ, is still spatially bound (sits at the right hand of God, will return again on the clouds, etc.) The PERSON of Christ is not Omnipresent.... the eternal Son of God, being equal to the Father and Spirit as deity is Omnipresent. Again, this is why the Lord Christ sent the Holy Spirit in his place when he ascended to be with the Father.
No matter how you slice it, your view contradicts both the clear teaching of Scripture and Chalcedon. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />
Your view actually embraces both the RCC and the LC views, though now you "claim" they do not:
Your Catholic View:
“"Take eat; this is my body" means that Christ gives us His natural body to be eaten.”
Your LC view:
“the body and blood of Christ are present in, with, and under the bread and wine in the incomprehensible spiritual mode in which He neither occupies nor vacates space.”
Both are false doctrines along with many of the other false doctrines of the LCMS:
(1) Universalism—
Quote
Since God has reconciled the whole world unto Himself
Quote
As to the question why not all men are converted and saved, seeing that God's grace is universal and all men are equally and utterly corrupt, we confess that we cannot answer it.
(2) Salvation—
Quote
we reject also the Calvinistic perversion of the doctrine of conversion, that is, the doctrine that God does not desire to convert and save all hearers of the Word, but only a portion of them. Many hearers of the Word indeed remain unconverted and are not saved, not because God does not earnestly desire their conversion and salvation, but solely because they stubbornly resist the gracious operation of the Holy Ghost, as Scripture teaches, Acts 7:51; Matt. 23:37; Acts 13:46.
(3) Justification/Righteousness—
Quote
Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ, Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 4:25; that therefore not for the sake of their good works, but without the works of the Law, by grace, for Christ's sake, He justifies, that is, accounts as righteous, all those who believe, accept, and rely on, the fact that for Christ's sake their sins are forgiven.
Your view actually embraces both the RCC and the LC views, though now you "claim" they do not:
Your Catholic View:
“"Take eat; this is my body" means that Christ gives us His natural body to be eaten.”
Your LC view:
“the body and blood of Christ are present in, with, and under the bread and wine in the incomprehensible spiritual mode in which He neither occupies nor vacates space.”
No. The RCC does not believe that the natural body of Christ is present. The Papists believe in a concept called concomitance whereby the bread is converted to a mixture of "Flesh and Blood, Body and Soul, Humanity and Divinity", a concept which they admit is not found in the Words of Institution.
Quote
NewAdvent, Real PresenceBy virtue of the words of consecration, or ex vi verborum, that only is made present which is expressed by the words of Institution, namely the Body and the Blood of Christ. But by reason of a natural concomitance (per concomitantiam), there becomes simultaneously present all that which is physically inseparable from the parts just named, and which must, from a natural connection with them, always be their accompaniment. Now, the glorified Christ, Who "dieth now no more" (Rom, vi, 9) has an animate Body through whose veins courses His life's Blood under the vivifying influence of soul. Consequently, together with His Body and Blood and Soul, His whole Humanity also, and, by virtue of the hypostatic union, His Divinity, i.e. Christ whole and entire, must be present. Hence Christ is present in the sacrament with His Flesh and Blood, Body and Soul, Humanity and Divinity
A brief point of clarification regarding your quotations from the LCMS Brief Statement. The only doctrinal formulations binding on LCMS members are those from the 1580 Book of Concord. LCMS convention resolutions do not have confessional authority. They are theses offered up for consideration. Your comments are appreciated.
No. The RCC does not believe that the natural body of Christ is present. The Papists believe in a concept called concomitance whereby the bread is converted to a mixture of "Flesh and Blood, Body and Soul, Humanity and Divinity", a concept which they admit is not found in the Words of Institution.
Pope John XXIII in 1963, at the Second Vatican Council, said, "I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent." What saith the Council of Trent;
Quote
If any one shall say that Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, even with the open worship of Latria ... nor to be solemnly carried about in processions ... and that He is not to be publicly set before the people to be adored, and that His adorers are idolaters,--let him be accursed!—Council of Trent, Canon VI
If any one shall deny that the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore entire Christ, are truly, really, and substantially contained in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist; and shall say that He is only in it as a sign, or in a figure--let him be accursed!—Council of Trent, Canon I
If any one shall say that the substance of the bread and wine remains in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist, together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ...--let him be accursed!—Council of Trent, Canon II
When Mass ends, the wafers do not change back into bread again, but remain God, according to Canon IV of the Council of Trent.
What saith other Catholic books and theologians?
Quote
When Jesus Christ said, 'Do this for a commemoration of Me,' He made His Apostles priests, and commanded them to change bread and wine into His Body and Blood. —Catholic Faith, Based on The Catholic Catechism, by His Eminence Peter Cardinal Gasparri (P.J. Kenedy & Sons, 1938), p 214.
My Lord Jesus Christ, I believe that Thou art truly present in the Blessed Sacrament. I believe that in holy communion I shall receive Thy sacred body and Thy precious blood. — Holy Souls Book, by Rev. F.X. Lasance, ed. (Benziger Brothers, 1922), p. 316, Nihil Obstat: A.J. Scanlan, S.T.D.; Imprimatur, P.J. Hayes, D.D., Archbishop of NY.
The Mass is the same Sacrifice as the Sacrifice of the Cross. The Victim is the same--Jesus Christ--offering Himself in the Mass through the ministry of His priests, as He once offered Himself on the Cross. ...
Revere, therefore, this table of which we all partake; Christ is slain for us; the Sacrifice is placed upon this altar. — Ibid, p 217, quoting St. John Chrysostom.
The most obvious meaning of the Consecration is the 'miracle' of the transubstantiation, or change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of the Saviour; and wherever His Body and Blood are, there is the whole Christ with His Soul and His Divinity. Before, on the altar, there was something, now there is Somebody...Christ, the Word Incarnate, is really present on the altar. He is present as really as in heaven, though in a different manner.—My Mass, by Joseph Putz. S.J. (Newman Press, 1955), p 55 Imprimi Potest: L. Schillebeeckx, S.J.; Imprimatur, J. Fernandes.
Christ changes our gifts into His Body and Blood ... it is the same Christ who was born of Mary and lifted up on the Cross for our salvation ...our God whom we adore: 'My Lord and my God.' ... here goes up to heaven the most efficacious satisfaction for the world's sins ...— Ibid, p 77.
For when the Lord says, “Unless ye have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man, and drunk His blood, ye will not have life in you”; you ought so to be partakers at the Holy Table, as to have no doubt whatever concerning the reality of Christ’s Body and Blood.— St. Leo I the Great, Sermon 91, c. 461.
After the words of consecration there is present numerically the same Body of Christ as was born of the Virgin and was immolated on the Cross. –Clement VI, Letter to the Armenians, September 29, 1351.
Quote
A brief point of clarification regarding your quotations from the LCMS Brief Statement. The only doctrinal formulations binding on LCMS members are those from the 1580 Book of Concord. LCMS convention resolutions do not have confessional authority. They are theses offered up for consideration. Your comments are appreciated.
The LCMS Brief Statement is the “present interpretation” and “application” of the BC that the LCMS embraces. Doctrinal statements are a declaration and not simply a consideration. Their site maintains “A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position….. The problem is that you desire to change the meaning of terms, like above, so that words have no meaning whatsoever, except those that you inspire at the moment they mean.
Pope John XXIII in 1963, at the Second Vatican Council, said, "I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent." What saith the Council of Trent;
Thanks for the references. It is clear the Papists still deny the presence of the natural body of Christ in favor of the concomitance concoction. The LC rejects everyone of the articles of Trent you have referenced.
Quote
The LCMS Brief Statement is the “present interpretation” and “application” of the BC that the LCMS embraces. Doctrinal statements are a declaration and not simply a consideration. Their site maintains “A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position."
It's a doctrinal position (i.e., theses) with no confessional status. The Brief Statement itself makes it clear that only the Book of Concord is binding upon the conscience of its ministers:
Quote
LCMS Brief Statement
45. We accept as our confession all the symbols contained in the Book of Concord of the year 1580. -- The symbols of the Lutheran Church are not a rule of faith beyond, and supplementary to, Scripture, but a confession of the doctrines of Scripture over against those who deny these doctrines.
46. Since the Christian Church cannot make doctrines, but can and should simply profess the doctrine revealed in Holy Scripture, the doctrinal decisions of the symbols are binding upon the conscience not because they are the outcome of doctrinal controversies, but only because they are the doctrinal decisions of Holy Scripture itself.
47. Those desiring to be admitted into the public ministry of the Lutheran Church pledge themselves to teach according to the symbols not "in so far as," but "because," the symbols agree with Scripture. He who is unable to accept as Scriptural the doctrine set forth in the Lutheran symbols and their rejection of the corresponding errors must not be admitted into the ministry of the Lutheran Church.
You have quoted some of the most controversial articles in the Brief Statement. I am perfectly willing to discuss them. However, they are not the doctrine of the LCMS, much less the LC.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/biggrinking.gif)
