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).
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
