Where Have All The Dmins Gone?

A Confessional Lutheran?

Uncle Janko,

What an interesting discussion ... could
you provide any URLs/sites that would
help to define exactly what a "confessional
Lutheran" is please?

My background is SBC, and I have a close
friend who is a LC-MS pastor. Like many,
I thought LC-MS was the right side and
the ELCA on the left side of 'being Lutheran'.

Your posts have been great as to 'seeing'
what is really going on in the LC-MS tribe!

Now I understand better what my friend
speaks of when we swap our respective
SBC & LC-MS ministry stories!

My email is listed, in case you would rather
respond off-line.

Billy
[email protected]

 

Bill,

Is this why you have so much time to spend on:

1. DegreeInfo
2. UZ Th.D.
3. ACCS D.Min. ???????????

Your wife won't let you out of your computer room?

 

..............

Hi Dennis (and Bill D.)

re 1 Corinthians 9:27:

You are right to raise your issues. Certainly it is true that some early Christians did become ascetics. And it is true that Paul suffered grievously in his evangelical endeavors. Also, the apostle seems at times to place the seat of sin in the body (Gal 5:17;Eph 2:13,) though in these references the Greek is sarx, ie. 'flesh' which has a range of meanings, not soma, as here, ie 'body. Further it is true that Jesus spoke of controlling sin by controlling the body as in Matthew 5:29 . Finally, Jesus recommended fasts as in Luke 5:35. So your points are well taken.

Nevertheless, I personally do not think Russell is wrong (on *THIS* occasion )! First, it could be pointed out that Paul was fond of using references from the Grecian games or war, and this seems one of those. In Philippians 3:14 and Acts 20:24 Paul speaks of Christian living as running a race, but not literally. In 2 Timothy 2:3 Christians are compared to soldiers, but not literally are they!. Likely this too is metaphoric.

Second, even in this same chapter of 1 Cor 9 Paul uses the metaphors of planting and soldiering and muzzling oxen, and look even a couple of verses away is running a race for a prize and the games are mentioned in verse 25. So in regard to taking 9:27 literally we have against this view the Pauline literary style and the immediate context as well. These two reasons to me are weighty.

Third, lexically in support of Russell we have the meaning of the word 'hupopiadzo ' which means deliver a powerful blow , a knockout punch, under the eye. So this seems not the scourging of one'self repeatedly.

And fourth. we have Pauline theology itself. No doubt Paul felt the pressures many feel as they struggle to do what they deem right. He described this in Romans 7, "O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" (7:24). (wesleyans may take this as the pre Christian Paul). But Paul's answer is not the whip , but "God through Jesus Christ." (v25).

This is not to suggest that in Christian Scripture a relationship does not exist between self sacrifice and/or control over the body and mind and Christian living. My comment only relates to this one verse, it is only my own opinion (and that of commentaries by Lenski; FF Bruce; Mare; Groshiede; Robertson and Plummer; and Chas Hodge).

 

.........................


I spend too much time on degreeinfo, that is true. But I enjoy the process of education and do not hurry toward the end of it! Nor do we consistently practice at home the Pauline mandate on male dominance.

I'm just one of Unk's liberals

 

And Morris!

 

Hi Billy: Here's a fairly brief answer with a little church-historical background thrown in.

From its earliest years the Lutheran movement has defined what it considers sound Biblical doctrine through a series of documents, originally issued on an ad hoc basis in response to various crises in 16th century "Germany". Here is the usual list of those documents:
the three ancient creeds--"Apostles", Nicene, and "Athanasian"
the Augsburg Confession and its Apology (Defense)
Luther's Small and Large Catechisms
the Smalcald Articles
the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope
the Formula of Concord [longest & most technical of them].
These were written as controversies developed with groups outside the Lutheran movement (Roman Catholics, Reformed, Anabaptists, and others) or in response to intra-Lutheran disputes. Serious Lutherans have always required full doctrinal agreement as a prerequisite to joint worship and church union, variously defined. The "Book of Concord," made up of these documents and completed in 1580, rapidly became the benchmark of such full agreement. Scandinavian Lutheran churches usually used only the Augsburg Confession and the catechisms as benchmarks.

In response or even reaction to the inroads of the Enlightenment, the influence of Pietism, ongoing controversies (mostly with the Reformed), and attempts at coercive church union, various elements within the Lutheran churches, primarily in Germany, saw a return to strict adherence to the Lutheran confessions, often accompanied by a concern for what was and was not appropriate in Lutheran liturgy, as a way for Lutheran churches to recover what was seen as a lost faithfulness to the fullness of Scriptural doctrine. Parallels to the Oxford Movement, the Mercersburg Theology, confessionalism in the Dutch Reformed church, and certain movements within Roman Catholicism are pretty clear; other parallels could surely be adduced as well.

Almost all the antecedents of the three largest Lutheran denominations in the US were touched by this "confessionalist" renaissance (ELCA, LCMS, WELS) to a greater or lesser degree.
The smaller Lutheran denominations tend to follow either a confessionalist (ELS, CLC, LCR), pietist/revivalist (AALC, LB, AFLC), or ethnic (Estonian and Latvian diaspora dioceses) pattern.

At the present time, the ELCA has adopted liberal views on biblical criticism and most issues of church practice. It is very actively engaged in the ecumenical movement, seeking and obtaining interchurch agreements with the Episcopal Church, the Moravian Church, the Presbyterian Church USA, and the United Church of Christ. It is an active participant in the National and World Councils of Churches, and should be regarded as a liturgically-oriented mainline protestant church body.

The Missouri Synod has mostly held aloof from ecumenical involvement except for cooperation in practical, non-theological matters. In recent decades, however, Missouri has debated--sometimes with great vehemence and even cruelty--the extent of its assimilation to "generic evangelicalism", its adherence or non-adherence to "higher" Biblical criticism, and the extent of its adherence or departure from "strict" Lutheran practice on church issues such as eucharistic sharing, interfaith joint worship, ordination of women, etc., etc. The LCMS has also had its share of what evangelicals have called "worship wars"--debates about the value of traditional liturgy versus contemporary Christian music and worship forms. It is not part of the organized ecumenical movement, although the LCMS is in eucharistic/theological felowship with several overseas Lutheran churches which do participate in the ecumenical movement.

The Wisconsin Synod, much smaller than the other two big synods, has remained strict in its demands for doctrinal conformity to the old confessionalist basis, although much flexibility in local church style and nonessential practice has become the norm in the last 20 years or so. For almost 100 years the Wisconsin and Missouri Synods were in eucharistic/theological felowship with one another, together with the much smaller Slovak and "Little Norwegian" synods. The Slovak Church became part of Missouri in the late 1960's. The "little Norwegian" ELS and WELS remain in fellowship with each other. There is no participation in the ecumenical movement.

To sum up, confessional Lutherans see loyalty to the teachings of their church as testable by requiring personal assent to the 16th century confessions on the part of clergy, paroichial school teachers, seminary profs, etc. The ELCA does not require such strict subscription, seeing the confessions as valuable historical descriptors of the Lutheran movement, but able to be amended or superseded by the demands of wholehearted ecumenical engagement. The Wisconsin Synod emphatically requires such strict subscription. The Missouri Synod oscillates uneasily between these two poles; my own belief is that the LCMS has become basically liberal and is slowly moving away from the "confessionalist" position.

Much of this will appear arcane or opaque to evangelicals, fundamentalists, or mainline protestants, who find tests of theological and spiritual soundness in other ways.

The relationship of all of this to distance education is a bit unclear--like a lot of other stuff, but here it is. My apologies to anyone put off by its ungermaneness to DL.

 

Adherence to the Formula of Concord & the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope can almost rise to cultic levels. I remember chuckling at a Bible Study discussing these (espc. Book of Concord and doctrinal acceptance). Non cradle Lutherans balked at what seemed to be almost raising of these Lutheran documents to the level of scripture (adulation).

North

 

In my church, we don't study confessional documents in Bible Study. We study the, uh, Bible. Many Lutherans use the term "Bible study" to mean whatever gets droned on about in the name of adult education. I don't.

Public fetishism about confessions, often bannered by self-taught "laity" playing doctrinal watchdog (without, of course, any divine call to do so) is a mark of a church-body sliding to the left; compare the prayer-book fights among Anglicans, and the disputes over left-wing and right-wing secular politics among mainlines, as signals of a wide range of additional conflicts.

The raising of confessions to near-Scriptural levels--the subversion of the unique authority of the Word of God by manmade documents--is another sign of a church body drifting to the left and looking for inappropriate anchors. Church bodies that entertain notions of being the one true visible church are also prone to this; church bodies which reject such fantasies (on the basis of these confessions) are less likely to make this particular mistake.

 

Truly you are correct, 'bible study' gets used to cover everything from studying the bible to studying cults.

I think this man made tendency to elevate doctrine, confessions, prayer books gets raised to ridiculous levels. It seems to happen everywhere from the WELS to the Episcopal Church. The WELS marches to a very legalistic drum beat (I think they believe heaven will be reserved for WELS only). The Episcopalians (my cradle denomination) can be so liberal that they see anyone with conservative scriptural values & beliefs to be anti-intellectual. This almost to the point of smugness. I defintely sensed self pitying smugness in some of Bishop Spong's remarks. I remember (IIRC) he once enjoyed a debate with Falwell and made comment in a book to the effect that he would have enjoyed taking it on the road but he did not believe Falwell was up to the task. Puhlease, he choose a guy with no where near the theological education he had (did not go trying to pick a fight with D. James Kennedy, RC Sproul, etc).

Denominations (including non denominationalism) are man made inventions. I think they are somewhat the natural course of things as they materialized fairly quickly. However, I think when we get to heaven we may be suprized at who is there. You may even run into President Barry.


North

 

Not so. Perhaps the right-wing of Missouri teaches that only LCMS adherents will be saved (although I cannot recall ever hearing that). Perhaps the left wing of the LCMS teaches that only decisionmakers-for-Christ will be saved (I can recall much comment coming perilously close to this).

I can assure you that any called worker (pastor, teacher, professor) deliberately teaching that only WELS members are saved would be tried for heresy, if this teaching became known to district and synod authorities. WELS categorically and totally rejects one-true-church-ism, not only as unscriptural, but as contradicting the Augsburg Confession and the Formula of Concord, at minimum. Such horrible false doctrine would show a spirit not only hostile to the confessions but profoundly at odds with the basic Scriptural teaching on justification and the means of grace.

Is Al Barry (late pres. of the LCMS) in heaven?

Yes: he was a baptized Christian continuing to profess faith in Christ and participating in the means of grace. Why WOULDN'T he be in heaven? Jesus died for theologically incoherent church bureaucrats along with the rest of us fools, too, didn't He?

 

It depends, Janko. If Barry is among the elect, then yes, he is in heaven. If he was not fortunate enough to be among the elect, then regardless of his personal profession of faith, he is not in heaven. According to Calvin, that is.

 

...................


From Russell's Bible:

""We chose Him before the creation of the world..we predestined ourselves", Ephesians 1:4. According to Arminius , that is.

 

Wow, Bill. You attribute more to Arminius than even I.

I wasn't aware he was one of the orginal author's of the Bible.

 

Well, well, multumesc foarte mult to you two for giving the C.P. a chance to bow out (the disjunct between this thread and DL, together with its placement on the DL rather than off-topic forum are sort of bugging me, even though that eventual disjunct was as much my fault as anybody's).
Lutherans believe in predestination of the elect who alone are saved, and we also believe in the well-meant offer of salvation to all people. These appear to contradict one another, but both are clearly taught in Scripture. So we teach both, freely acknowledge the logical problem, and happily leave it to Calvinists and Arminians to tussle over the election issue, waiting for a possible explanation in the olam ha-ba.

 

I, too, believe both, Janko. I also acknowledge the logical problem. I just can't get Bill to admit he is wrong.

 

............

Nor was I aware that you spoke for Calvin why don't you tell me where Calvin said that REGARDLESS of one's faith he may not be saved unless elected, hmmm????

 

Hyper-Calvinism (not Calvin) teaches that if one is NOT among the elect, then one CANNOT be saved. Why? He/she has not been elected to be saved.

 

Is there a place for the D Min. In teaching?

It seems like a person with a DMin should be qualified to teach at a Seminary Level in the area of Ministry. He or she would have probably had an MDiv with around 90 credits as well as approx. 36 credits in a DMIn program. It would seem to me that a person with that education should be sought to teach ministry courses in a seminary or college level.

I might be way out in left field, but does'nt it seem that the DMIn gets a bad rap at times?

Robert

 

........................

Russell:

You're having some difficulty here. Your post to Unk said that Calvin taught that even if a man (generic) believes, unless the man is elected he will not be saved. Now instead you state that "hypercalvinists" say that unless a man is elected, he cannot be saved. You have commited some errors even in your backtracking:

1) Your initial caricature of Calvin misrepresented the Reformer's position. As Calvin attributed personal faith to God's drawing one to Christ (John 6:44) or God's opening one's heart (Acts 16;14--these are my references not the Reformer's), (ie the working out of God's election) were one ,then, to have genuine faith then that one necessarily would have been elected too. In Calvin, the ground of faith is election ; faith is the effect and evidence of that election. (see: Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, 8:4). Therefore your first statement, I feel, is not correct.

2) Even Arminius (see: Arminius on Predestination,V) and Arminian Theology ,coherent to the remonstrant statements, would say that unless one were elected one could not be saved. That is because faith saves but election is taken as the effect of divinely foreseen faith (an unsupportable interpretation btw of 'proginosko' in Rom 8:28; 1 Pet 1:2). Here in Arminianism the ground of election is faith! And so your broad and unqualified statement above fits both "hyper calvinists" and Arminians. Therefore your second statement is not sufficiently qualified by a long way to exclude either of the three positions to which we allude , and so neither is it correct.

I suppose Unk's vigorous vigilance over his confessions has inspired my zealousness to preserve- even at the risk of confronting an old pal- Calvin's "incredible insights." Or maybe I'm just a bigmouth; yes, that's it! Sorry Russell

Yet, we should be, as Paul says, "aletheuontes de en agape", Eph 4.

 

Re: Is there a place for the D Min. In teaching?

.........................

Robert

Of course the Dmin in Ministry qualifies one to teach ministry at the grad level. this is DONE ALL OVER! But your your former question concerned TRACS schools. Unlikely RA/ATS will hire TRACS grad.

But I do much question that an Mdiv then DMin in Ministry qualifies under most conditions to teach Bible/theology at the grad (at least above MA) level. Yet, this too is DONE ALL OVER.