Lutheran CORE moves quickly to form new denomination
After a vote in September to spend a year considering the formation of a new denomination, Lutheran CORE (Coalition for Renewal) has shifted into high gear to distance itself from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. The move is in reaction to a vote taken in August by the ELCA to allow practicing homosexuals in committed relationships to serve as clergy, a move that Lutheran CORE members say directly contradicts Scripture.
Ryan Schwarz, who is leading the organizing effort, said a committee would begin work immediately on drafting a constitution and building a budget for the new denomination, which CORE hopes to launch by next August.
“Many of us have spent years now struggling to call the ELCA to remain faithful to the Orthodox Christianity of the last 2,000 years,” Schwarz said. “While this is of course a wrenching decision, there is also a sense of hope in refocusing on our true mission, which is evangelizing the Lutheran faith.”
Lutheran CORE is urging supportive congregations to stop paying support to the ECLA, and for those opposed to the denomination’s liberal policy but don’t want to leave the ELCA, CORE will continue in its efforts to try to create a free-floating synod within the ELCA.














Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top68 Comments to “Lutheran CORE moves quickly to form new denomination”
As to why this new group won’t align with the LCMS (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod) I’ll restate my earlier comment from WV.
An anonymous LCMS pastor explained that the main issue is with the LCMS’ position that only males can be pastors. The second issue is with closed communion. Thirty years ago the issue of women in the pastoral office would not have been a divisive issue since no Lutheran denomination ordained women. What members fail to understand is that the same arguments for womens’ ordination are the same as for accepting homosexuality. Once you ignore Scripture on one point, it opens the door to anarchy.
Schism begets schism.
Report comment to moderator
Once you ignore Scripture on one point, it opens the door to anarchy.
Let’s see. It’s only be 2,000 years (give or take a year or two).
How long until Christianity decides what is really Truth?
Here’s one of the problems. If you decide the Bible is literally true, then you cling to evolution is not true, or only true in some limited way. Doesn’t matter if you are “Old Earth” or “New Earth,” as long as you believe in the Garden of Eden and ignore all the evidence for human evolution.
If you decide the Bible is literally true, then you have to deprive loving homosexual couples of not only “marriage” but also civil unions and domestic partnerships.
On the other hand, if you start to use a little common sense and pay attention to empirical evidence, how do you stop bending the Book. This way lies nihilism.
Report comment to moderator
Nana,
I don’t think it’s quite the same.
One can argue against women’s ordination on the basis of leadership, that the leaders of the Church should be men.
Arguments against homosexual clergy are on the basis of their lifestyle, and how it goes against Scripture.
The two are entirely different reasons.
Full disclosure: I grew up ALC (American Lutheran Church) and my congregation merged into the ELCA in the 1970’s. My church never had a woman pastor, but I transferred to another ELCA church in the ’90’s whose assistant pastor was a woman. I never had a problem with women clergy as long as they were not the head pastor.
Report comment to moderator
Ryan Schwarz said; “While this is of course a wrenching decision, there is also a sense of hope in refocusing on our true mission, which is evangelizing the Lutheran faith.”
It is a no-brainer decision. It has to be done and I commend Schwarz for making an orthodox stand. But I would quibble with his understanding of his mission, namely to evangelize “the Lutheran faith.” It should be to evangelize “the Christian faith,” and that’s more than merely a semantic distinction (in my view).
Report comment to moderator
Weclome brother and sister I pray God will bless your group.
Report comment to moderator
Scott Robinson, Nana – the question that must be answer on the role of a woman as a pastor is where do they get the Scriptural backing from.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name
“If you decide the Bible is literally true, then you have to deprive loving homosexual couples of not only “marriage” but also civil unions and domestic partnerships.’
Sorry, the Church has not deprive homosexual couples of anything, society has said no to gay “marriage” but also civil unions and domestic partnerships
Report comment to moderator
#7
My society, Washington state, has said yes to domestic partnerships despite desperate efforts by the religious right to overturn it.
Are you going to start working with a giant saw at the Idaho border to separate us from the rest of the country?
As I said, today, I don’t consider you an “enemy,” but I do consider you a foe. You’ve just lost a round. I don’t begrudge you the right to tell yourself that you will live forever, though there is no evidence to support this belief, but I am in opposition that you your supernatural beliefs provide you with any special rights to dictate to our society.
However, I do oppose efforts to stop Christians from praying. Pray for respect, though; it’s slipping away from you.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name – an in many states the people (not the Church) decide not to recognize domestic partnerships (gay marriage) from any state.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy,
Does Scripture forbid women clergy? I know Paul outlines qualifications for bishops, but I don’t recall any restrictions for pastors.
Report comment to moderator
Scott Robinson 11.19.09 AT 11:02 AM
Pastor Roy,
Does Scripture forbid women clergy? I know Paul outlines qualifications for bishops, but I don’t recall any restrictions for pastors.
—
That is the key question, many Churches use Paul’s qualifications for bishops as the qualifications for Pastor.
Also we need to look at God’s Word from start to finish an see what role within side God’s House and the Family, that God has set aside for man and woman.
Report comment to moderator
Scott, I grew up in the LCMS and have also been grappling with that pastor’s statement. But Paul does give some specific instructions in 1Timothy and Titus. I’ve seen churches justify their ordination of women because they consider Paul’s writings as his own personal opinions, while he goes out of his way to repeat his position as a command of the Lord.
Report comment to moderator
Why don’t they just become Catholics?
Report comment to moderator
Joel, you and I share the same view. A sad choice of words I hope he corrects.
Report comment to moderator
Nana 11.19.09 AT 11:16 AM
Scott, I grew up in the LCMS and have also been grappling with that pastor’s statement. But Paul does give some specific instructions in 1Timothy and Titus. I’ve seen churches justify their ordination of women because they consider Paul’s writings as his own personal opinions, while he goes out of his way to repeat his position as a command of the Lord.
—
The problem is balancing the role of the women inside the Church and the Family and the role of the women in society.
Report comment to moderator
The ELCA congregation and the Pastor of the church I used to attend voted almost unanimously to leave the ELCA and affiliate with CORE.
I congratulate them for making a stand and I confess I am very surprised the Pastor there also chose to disaffiliate himself with the ELCA. I really didn’t think he had the courage to do so.
For me it was far too little and way too late. The ELCA has taken a number of positions over the years that I am convinced are unscriptural as a result we left the ELCA before the recent gay crisis struck.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, I see women as helping to assist men in their leadership roles, in both the church and family. That opens up a lot of needed roles and work to do. An attitude of necessary service guides what we do as we serve the Lord. When there’s no man to serve Him as a leader, women have had to fill the vacuum on a temporary basis, waiting for God to provide His natural order of leadership.
Report comment to moderator
Nana 11.19.09 AT 11:34 AM
Pastor Roy, I see women as helping to assist men in their leadership roles, in both the church and family. That opens up a lot of needed roles and work to do. An attitude of necessary service guides what we do as we serve the Lord. When there’s no man to serve Him as a leader, women have had to fill the vacuum on a temporary basis, waiting for God to provide His natural order of leadership.
—-
That is great way to put it, an I am in agreement.
But it is hard for people today to understand it.
Report comment to moderator
“Does Scripture forbid women clergy? I know Paul outlines qualifications for bishops, but I don’t recall any restrictions for pastors.”
I Timothy 2:12 says, quite categorically, “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man…”
If the office involves any exercize of authority, it can be confidently argued that it’s unbiblical for a woman to hold it.
Report comment to moderator
David L.
I Timothy 2:12 says, quite categorically, “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man…”
If the office involves any exercize of authority, it can be confidently argued that it’s unbiblical for a woman to hold it.
——
Those who believe in Women Pastor would present the case that in Church denomination, a woman pastor would not be over all in authority over a man. She is under the authority of the man or men in charge of the Church denomination. This is also the case present of a woman working inside the Church, as Sunday school teacher etc. she is under the Male Pastor authority .
Report comment to moderator
We also left the ELCA years ago when the whole idea of whether or not the bible was the word of God or contains the word of God was being grappled with. To me this is a far greater issue than the others, since it is the basis of how you are going to look at everything else.
I pray that the church of God will one day be united in the same way Jesus Christ prayed it would be. Not a false uniting, but dropping those things that are not important and holding to core beliefs. I pray this group will spend much time in prayer and study and not be led astray, but towards truth.
Report comment to moderator
BTW, Random, how is your grandaughter doing in school? I hope they can find a way to keep her from utter boredom. Otherwise, a change of schools may be needed. That is what we eventually did. I found a school that was more challenging. It was not easy where I live, but I am glad we did it.
Report comment to moderator
Well…
The first person to proclaim the resurrection and Gods Grace to the world was a woman. She did so at the specific instruction of Jesus himself.
The men didn’t believe her and ended up looking like uh,, men when Christ appeared among them.
I, for one am very careful when making definitive statements on which sex is not allowed to preach the gospel.
Report comment to moderator
Opps! Sorry, move that last comment to Whirled Views. Sheesh!
Report comment to moderator
maj. vic 11.19.09 AT 12:07 PM
Well…
The first person to proclaim the resurrection and Gods Grace to the world was a woman. She did so at the specific instruction of Jesus himself.
The men didn’t believe her and ended up looking like uh,, men when Christ appeared among them.
I, for one am very careful when making definitive statements on which sex is not allowed to preach the gospel.
—
There is a different from preach the gospel and being the pastor of the Church.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not aware that our LCMS congregation has closed communion . . . hmmmm.
Report comment to moderator
michelle 11.19.09 AT 12:18 PM
I’m not aware that our LCMS congregation has closed communion . . . hmmmm.
—
What is a closed communion?
Report comment to moderator
“There is a different from preach the gospel and being the pastor of the Church.”
So… pastors in your church do not preach the gospel? Gosh, that is basically a key requirement in mine.
Women who are not pastors are allowed to proclaim the Gospel from the Church pulpit?
Report comment to moderator
So… you can’t preach the Gospel unless you’re behind a pulpit in a church building?
Report comment to moderator
“What is a closed communion?”
Closed communion is where sharing in the Lord’s table (communion) is restricted to those who are professed believers. In the LCMS this is in practice are those who belong to the denomination. This is done in order to (hopefully)limit the number of those who partake of the Lord’s table unworthily.
If you are in fact a pastor you are(or should be)aware of the many Scriptures asserting that communion is not to be taken lightly.
This is one of the many reasons I left the LCMS. The LCMS has what they call an “open table”. What this means in practice is that anyone in attendance may participate in communion regardless their spiritual state or even whether they profess to be a believer.
I consider this to be beyond the pale.
Report comment to moderator
maj. vic 11.19.09 AT 12:28 PM
“There is a different from preach the gospel and being the pastor of the Church.”
So… pastors in your church do not preach the gospel? Gosh, that is basically a key requirement in mine.
Women who are not pastors are allowed to proclaim the Gospel from the Church pulpit?
——-
Anyone can preach the Gospel, but God calls people to be a Pastor. God’s calling will never go against His Word. If a Church denomination uses Paul’s qualifications for bishops as the qualifications for Pastor. Then there is a problem having a woman pastor.
If you look at The role of a man and the role of a woman through God’s Word, He has set a side certain roles for a man an certain role for a woman and His calling will never go against His Word.
Report comment to moderator
Conor – I never heard of the term closed communion. communion is a personal matter an anyone who is going to take communion, need to take a few minutes in pray.
Report comment to moderator
An “open table” does not mean someone is taken communion lightly.
Report comment to moderator
“So… you can’t preach the Gospel unless you’re behind a pulpit in a church building?”
If your a man, you can do so anywhere; if you are a woman in some disciplines there are huge restrictions. Following the logic, if a woman can never be in authority over a man, then she can never proclaim God’s grace to any male. The very act of one sinner telling another about Jesus places one in spiritual authority.
For years we men have played games with this trying to grant women authority in some situations (Sunday School) while prohibiting pastoral authority. For me it just does not hold true.
Report comment to moderator
maj. vic
For years we men have played games with this trying to grant women authority in some situations (Sunday School) while prohibiting pastoral authority. For me it just does not hold true.
—–
It goes back again to what does God’s Word say about who can or can not be a Pastor. What does God’s Word show through out His Word in relationship on a man role in God’s House versus a Woman role in God’s House.
Report comment to moderator
If you use the Old Testament – you come away with the Idea that God has set aside the role of being in Charge of God’s House was for a man only. If you take Paul’s Written you come away with the idea that God has set aside the role of being in Charge of God’s House or Pastor was for a man only.
The problem is this view is in direct conflict with our Society view on what a woman can do.
Report comment to moderator
“What does God’s Word show through out His Word in relationship on a man role in God’s House versus a Woman role in God’s House.”
On this, I guess we are not going to reach agreement. But I am content to wait until my wife and I meet you in heaven where Christ can explain, if you are still of the same mind, that he did call her to be a pastor.
Report comment to moderator
“For years we men have played games with this trying to grant women authority in some situations (Sunday School) while prohibiting pastoral authority. For me it just does not hold true.”
Well, then, your problem is with God and His Word, not with me.
Report comment to moderator
maj. vic 11.19.09 AT 1:04 PM
“What does God’s Word show through out His Word in relationship on a man role in God’s House versus a Woman role in God’s House.”
On this, I guess we are not going to reach agreement. But I am content to wait until my wife and I meet you in heaven where Christ can explain, if you are still of the same mind, that he did call her to be a pastor.
—–
I believe women can preach, but when it comes to the role of Pastor , I have not seen the scripture to support a woman in the role of pastor. Am I open to change my mind yes, if it can be shown in God’s Word.
Report comment to moderator
“An “open table” does not mean someone is taken communion lightly.”
I agree, it does not, nor should it.
Nevertheless, many people will and do regard communion as being of no consequence and this is exacerbated when a pastor invites everyone to partake without regard to their spiritual condition nor bothering to express to them of the gravity of the sacrament.
This is exactly how I saw the issue in the ELCA. The “open table” was just that, an open invitation for everyone to partake whether they were a believer or not and without reflecting on the significance of what they were doing…
Which they all too often did.
Report comment to moderator
Okay, I don’t weigh in on theological issues often but I don’t get the value of closed communion. If you don’t believe in transubstantiation (which if I remember correctly, no Lutherans do) what is the point of a closed communion? The ELCA has decided that there is greater harm in presenting an unwelcoming table than in someone mistaking the sacrament for a cultural practice they should participate in like they would lighting a candle on Christmas Eve. And I think they are right.
Report comment to moderator
Conor, As someone who often attends a church other than my own, I must say I disagree with you on communion.
No one knows my heart. I can say all the right things to any pastor and take communion with the blackest, falsest heart in creation.
I can have the cleanest most forgiven heart and be told I don’t by some pastor who for whatever reason decides it is so.
Usually when one notices that there is a closed communion, you are sitting in a service already. It is too late to go and ask anyone for permission for communion.
After attending one church a few times, I finally did talk to the pastor right before the service and was granted permission. I am sorry, though, that many times visitors cannot commune together with a congregation. For those traveling etc. Missionaries stopping in, it becomes an issue.
While the Paul spoke on the serious of communion, I see no where where he tells pastors they should exclude people from it.
Report comment to moderator
KI – Paul spoke on taken communion with a wrong heart. many times this part of Paul teaching is left out.
Report comment to moderator
It isn’t a matter of being excluded by the pastor or church. It’s a matter of emphasizing that all communicants examine their own hearts before they go forward or particiapte in the pew.
Report comment to moderator
Nana 11.19.09 AT 2:45 PM
It isn’t a matter of being excluded by the pastor or church. It’s a matter of emphasizing that all communicants examine their own hearts before they go forward or particiapte in the pew.
—
I agree but it does lead to a hard question as a Pastor if you know someone is not a Christian, should you encouarge that person not to take commuin?
Report comment to moderator
Aquila and Priscilla are always spoken of ‘together’ its also evident that when they took Apollos into their home they both “expounded unto him they way of God more perfectly.”
Above is an excellent example of both a husband and wife teaching another man the way of GOD more perfectly.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria 11.19.09 AT 2:50 PM
Aquila and Priscilla are always spoken of ‘together’ its also evident that when they took Apollos into their home they both “expounded unto him they way of God more perfectly.”
24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
Acts 18:24-26
Above is an excellent example of both a husband and wife teaching another man the way of GOD more perfectly.
—
the key is husband and wife.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy,
I’m not so sure there is such a ‘key’ as ‘husband and wife’ –
I do believe that men are called to be pastors, evangelists and elders. This passage of Scripture defines the fact that Priscilla was engaged in teaching Apollos. Obviously she and her husband didn’t speak at the same time, they both were doing what they were led by the HOLY Spirit to say and teach Appolos,…. having said that, Priscilla would then have taught and stated what she had been led to say.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria 11.19.09 AT 3:36 PM
Pastor Roy,
I’m not so sure there is such a ‘key’ as ‘husband and wife’ –
I do believe that men are called to be pastors, evangelists and elders. This passage of Scripture defines the fact that Priscilla was engaged in teaching Apollos. Obviously she and her husband didn’t speak at the same time, they both were doing what they were led by the HOLY Spirit to say and teach Appolos,…. having said that, Priscilla would then have taught and stated what she had been led to say.
—-
“Key words” as ‘husband and wife.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy,
We don’t agree – There is no Scripture which states this specifically.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria 11.19.09 AT 3:51 PM
Pastor Roy,
We don’t agree – There is no Scripture which states this specifically
—
I am confuse? I agree with you statement “I do believe that men are called to be pastors, evangelists and elders
Report comment to moderator
#22
Our granddaughter is attending a private school for high-IQ children. Reports are that she has attached herself to a bratty kid and acting bratty and giggling inappropriately. My theory is that she (as a very introverted child) has made herself into a sidekick to an inappropriate extrovert.
I suppose an optimistic view will be that she will get adolescence out of the way at 5 and 6 years old and then start to grow up. My wife and I are going to “grandparents’ day” next week (also our 44th anniversary) to observe her. I am considering wearing a t-shirt that says This is not our grandchild. No genetic connection. Will adopt your grandchild for [organic] food.
However, this will not go over well with Mrs. Random and the mommies, so I will probably behave myself, lest I get sent out in the hall with Random Granddaughter, who has been asked to do her work in the hall until she can behave herself in the classroom. Well, Mickey was on my case a few weeks ago, so even though bad behavior is not genetic, it may be a family thing.
Report comment to moderator
I believe that women can teach and help men just as Priscilla did -
Report comment to moderator
Victoria 11.19.09 AT 4:22 PM
I believe that women can teach and help men just as Priscilla did –
–
my wife is a great teacher, she handle the sunday school adult class and our in home wenadays Bible Study. I did the preching on Sunday Morning and Even Services.
Report comment to moderator
“No one knows my heart. I can say all the right things to any pastor and take communion with the blackest, falsest heart in creation.”
“I can have the cleanest most forgiven heart and be told I don’t by some pastor who for whatever reason decides it is so.”
Actually I agree with you fully on both points.
My disagreement with the ELCA policy regarding communion is this:
The Lutheran Church as a rule believes in consubstantiation (perfused in some sense with the literal presence of Christ)which means the host should be held in much higher regard than it is in denominations that regard it as merely representative of Christ (Zwingli, Calvin etc.).
As such it should be reserved for those that at least profess belief in Christ. Obviously only the Lord knows an individuals heart as to whether they are worthy to partake or not; something no pastor is capable of doing.
An open table became an issue for me when the pastor would commune people who were unrepentantly living in grievous sin and also those who did not profess to be believers at all. Further, I cannot recollect a single Sunday where the congregation was exhorted to examine their hearts as to whether they were worthy or instructed that the Sacrament was for those who were believers.
A closed table such as the LCMS practices isn’t to judge an individuals heart rather it is to attempt to reserve it to some extent to those who at least profess to believe.
In the end I suspect we agree the responsibility and the consequences are on the head of those individuals who commune unworthily.
Nevertheless, I prefer denominations that at least exhort individuals to abstain under some circumstances rather than inviting one and all to partake without reservation.
Report comment to moderator
I have never belonged to a church that practiced closed communion. I have also never belonged to a church, other than the liberal UCC church I grew up in (before I became a believer) that did not make a point of stating that communion was only for believers and that we needed to examine our hearts before partaking. I can remember times when I chose not to participate, because I was struggling with some sin in my life and even though I asked for forgiveness I wasn’t sure I had really turned away from it.
I did visit an LCMS church one time for Easter sunrise service, because it was the only church nearby offering such a service. I have never felt such a lack of welcome as I did there. No one went out of their way to make me feel unwelcome, but no one went out of the way to make me feel welcome either, although they all appeared to know each other and I was clearly a visitor. I was constantly watching others to try to figure out which book to read from/sing from, whether to stand or sit or kneel, etc. Then seeing in the bulletin that communion was open only to those who believed in the “real presence” of Christ in communion, I felt even more shut out.
My husband told me later that he would have taken communion anyway (assuming the pastor did not refuse to serve him). But I felt that it would be wrong to take communion when the church felt that strongly about the importance of sharing their belief about it, that they made a special note in the bulletin for visitors. (This was an area where the local economy depended on tourism, so churches had more visitors than would be the case in many towns.)
I remember in Western Civ class, thirty years ago, learning how Catholics believed in transubstantation and Lutherans believed in “consubstantiation,” but I could never quite understand what it was the Lutherans believed, let alone accept it myself. Fro that matter, even after my husband has explained the Presbyterian belief in the “spiritual presence” fo Christ in communion, which is somehow more than the spiritual presence of Christ throughout the worship service, I can’t quite figure it out either. In many ways I still think like a Baptist, including seeing communion as a memorial rather than a sacrament.
Mynock,
To try to answer your question, as to why have closed communion if we don’t believe in transubstantiation –
I would think it is primarily out of concern for the spiritual state of those who might otherwise consider taking communion when they should not. I’m not sure exactly what Paul had in mind when he talked about the dangers of taking it unworthily, but it is clear that it’s not something to take lightly. I prefer the approach of the churches I have belonged to, where people decide for themselves whether their hearts are prepared for communion. But I can understand why some churches might wish to limit it to those who are known personally by the pastor, as he will be familiar with their lives and whether their profession of faith is matched by their lives.
As to whether it is better to present an “unwelcoming” table or risk someone mistaking communion for a cultural practice –
I think the sense of welcome come primarily from the attitude and actions of the leaders and congregation, not whether I can participate in communion. If the LCMS church I visited had clearly welcomed me as a visitor, the fact I could not participate in communion would not have seemed so unwelcoming. But I did appreciate that they had sufficient concern for my spiritual state that they did not want me to partake in a manner they would have considered unworthy.
People who honestly want to follow Christ and grow in their faith do not mind high expectations and requirements. Many churches worry that if they don’t make it easy for new people to become a part of the church that they won’t want to. But the churches that plainly tell new people up front that the expectations are high, usually have greater growth (numerically as well as spiritually) than those that try to make it easy.
Report comment to moderator
Good points, Conor. Though “perfused” doesn’t help me understand any better than “consubstantation” does.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Pauline.
Consubstantiation is a rather difficult concept to explain. The difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation is more or less as follows:
Transubstantiation is the belief that when the elements are consecrated they literally transformed into the body and blood of the Lord while still retaining the appearance of wafer(bread)and wine.
Consubstantiation is the belief that when the elements are consecrated they remain bread and wine but they are perfused (filled) with the literal presence of the Lord.
Martin Luther used the analogy of a sponge submersed in a bucket of water to explain this point. He pointed out that the sponge was still just a sponge but that water was in, on, and through it nonetheless.
So it is with the consecrated host. As such the host and the ordnance should be approached with respect.
I have no direct experience with LCMS closed communion but I’ve been told by LCMS members that its intent is the same as it is in the Catholic Church which is where I used to worship.
Father ***** used to say that to commune unworthily while it would profane the Sacrament, would in no way harm the Lord; Of course not!
It would however bestow consequences on the head of those who chose to profane it. His responsibility as spiritual leader was to make sure the congregants understood the gravity of the Sacrament they were participating in.
Also, if he was certain that someone was attempting to profane the Sacrament it was his responsibility to withhold it both in their best interest and to respect the Lord.
I hope that helps.
Report comment to moderator
“Consubstantiation is the belief that when the elements are consecrated they remain bread and wine but they are perfused (filled) with the literal presence of the Lord.”
I don’t know, Conor. What does the word “literal” mean in that sentence? It doesn’t mean his physical body is present – that would be transubstantiation. Apparently it doesn’t mean spiritually present – that’s the Presbyterian view, as I understand it, which I’m pretty sure is not the same as the Lutheran view. What kind of presence is it?
In normal speech, if I say I’m literally present I mean that I’m physically there. As opposed to being figuratively present, by being in people’s minds, perhaps. Normally I think of the Lord as being truly present in worship, but spiritually present rather than physically present. How is He present in the bread and wine that He is not already present with us in worship?
I realize that there are things beyond our understanding. I don’t really understand the Trinity, but I know what I mean by it when I say I believe it. I really don’t understand what it means to speak of the Lord being literally present in bread and wine that remain bread and wine.
Report comment to moderator
“I really don’t understand what it means to speak of the Lord being literally present in bread and wine that remain bread and wine.”
In truth I really don’t understand it fully myself. I simply take the Lord’s presence in communion in whatever form on faith rather than choosing to see it as merely symbolic as many others appear to do.
Like the trinity His manner of presence is a mystery beyond my ability to truly comprehend but lack of comprehension does not equal disbelief.
In any case it isn’t so important to me whether the Lord is present physically, spiritually,or only symbolically in remembrance of His sacrifice, this to me like the specific mode of baptism is a relatively minor doctrine.
What does matter to me is the significance of His sacrifice and the importance of communing with Him honestly, reverently, and with a contrite spirit.
Report comment to moderator
“denominations that regard it as merely representative of Christ (Zwingli, Calvin etc.).”
Please. John Calvin taught quite extensively in accordance with the Scriptures, and in concert with the ecumenical creeds that Christ is PHYSICALLY in heaven without any supernatural splitting his physical parts, so that He is not physically at thousands of communion tables in bodily form. Calvinists teach that Christ is really and truly present as we ‘feed upon Him’ truly, not corporally. We do not regard the bread as merely representing His body. You seem to be lumping Zwingli’s “memorial view” with Calvin’s spiritual view. The memorial view is what it is – a memorial to His death until He returns. The Calvinist believes he truly feeds upon Christ in a spiritual way not found in any other activity until He returns.
Paul’s teaching is either merely an opinion or its God’s Word. If we don’t receive Paul, we reject Christ – Jesus told us this.
It is clear that the OFFICE of elder/bishop/overseer is for men. Elder and bishop are used interchangeably. Thus, any ‘office’ called pastor is at a minimum a teaching office. I grew up in the LCA/ELCA, and ALL pastors are in teaching offices in some capacity. Thus, ordaining women as pastors is unbiblical. A pastor IS a bishop/elder by any definition.
If you want to make an unbiblical office and ordain women into it, its still wrong.
You may not like the Bible, but it is the only rule for our faith. A deliberate misinterpretation to accommodate people who don’t want to submit to it is cowardly.
Any passage that records women implicitly ‘teaching men’ is just that – an implication of a particular set of circumstances – not a rule for us to govern the church. (Do Lutherans baptize the dead?) Thus, when determining the truth of how to govern the church, we must turn to those passages which do give us explicit teaching about offices – and they exist, and teach us that only men are to be officers – elders and deacons. Luther taught us how to do this by the “analogy of faith”. So did Jesus, Paul, etc.
It is a shame that the church sucks in the world to make a religion in their own image. As Rome sought one world power in the papacy, an unbiblical office, because men at the time loved monarchies, so modernistic churches polluted governance with women in offices to appease the rule of women. And they wonder why they have a dispute over sodomy.
Castrate, and bid the geldings be fruitful.
Report comment to moderator
“You seem to be lumping Zwingli’s “memorial view” with Calvin’s spiritual view.”
You are correct that lumping them together is what I appear to be doing.
I do understand the difference between Calvin’s spiritual view and Zwingli’s memorial view.
Yes, Calvin did believe in the Lord’s spiritual presence nevertheless, both Calvin and Zwingli deny the literal presence of the Lord at the table which is the point I was trying to make regarding the Lutheran position.
I lumped them together as a contrast to the literal presence view which is found in both transubstantiation and consubstantiation though they differ on the specifics.
Regarding my personal view on the subject read #60.
Report comment to moderator
Calvinists do believe in a literal presence, just not corporal (which is not real, because it is not true).
Christ being present in His Spirit, and in a significant way is literally present.
Report comment to moderator
#60 “In any case it isn’t so important to me whether the Lord is present physically, spiritually,or only symbolically in remembrance of His sacrifice, this to me like the specific mode of baptism is a relatively minor doctrine.”
Conor,
I agree. Which is why I was taken aback to find that the LCMS church I visited would only serve communion to those who believe in “real presence.” Apparently different LCMS churches do this differently, however. Someone here on the blog (I forget now who) told me that her LCMS church has never set any such requirement.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve always heard of LCMS fencing the table from those who do not believe in the physical presence. They more or less have to do this. For them, it is “not properly discerning” the body and blood of Christ, which then would mean that the participant would be eating and drinking judgement on themselves – so they MUST fence the table against those who do not believe in physical presence. I disagree with their view of real presence, but I must say that they are being entirely consistent.
“it isn’t so important to me whether the Lord is present physically, spiritually,or only symbolically…”
It may not be important to you, but it is to Christ’s church. If you haven’t made up your mind, fine, but keep on studying. The Bible teaches us that He is fully God and fully Man, and his real body has ascended to the Father. Then the church made definitive statements reflecting what this meant, and we ought to know what we believe. It does impact this special sacrament.
IN any case, fencing the table from unbelievers is necessary for any church.
Report comment to moderator
Once a person accepts things that can’t be proven are the foundation of truth, they can argue about the details for the rest of their life, always claiming that they have “proved” their case.
Report comment to moderator
My understanding of “closed communion” is not closed to non-believers, but closed to non-members. The thinking is that it enables the church to help ensure that the participants are in fact not partaking lightly. I believe that it is well intentioned but neither Biblically warranted nor helpful to individual responsibility.
Report comment to moderator
I do know that the Episcopalians recently debated the idea of communion without baptism, i.e., should non-Christians be allowed to partake. (The answer the Episcopalians reached, fwiw, is no, they should not.)
However, they do allow any baptized Christian; you don’t have to be a member of a specific local church or even the denomination.
I know there’s been some debate in this thread about what it means to take communion unworthily. According to Paul (1 Corinthians 11:17-29), it means to be a glutton at the public communal gathering, overindulging in food and wine while others starve.
Paul was writing to the church about their behavior at an actual meal, not the formalized communion ritual where you eat a bit of bread and drink a sip of wine or juice.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!