Unless you have been living under a rock, you have heard bout the plans for a Mosques two blocks away from ground zero. Now I personally believe in freedom of religion...however it seems to me that since there is a mosques four blocks away from ground zero...that is only another two blocks. Whenever my dad and I discuss this matter he acts as if ALL Muslims are accountable for 9/11, but that just isn't true. My family are mostly German and Irish so I asked him "Are we accountable for Hitler" and he said "yes"...my mouth dropped to the floor. He would never have said that any other time. He refused to amit that we aren't accountability Hitler...even though we aren't.
That got me to thinking about how group AREN'T accountable for their worste members...are all Catholic priest accountable for the few bad ones? Are all Germans are accountable for Hilter (as stated above)? Are all the Japanese accountable for Pearl Habor...and for that matter are all people of ever nation accountable for their nation's wars? Are all Lutheran accountable for Ed Gein? I don't believe so!!!
Friday, August 20, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Theological problems with Baptist
(Disclaimer:My Grammar might suck a bit)
I would like to discuss in this post about the differences between baptist Lutheranism. I have some personal Theological probalems with Baptist, but in this post I would like to dicuss the Theological differences.
Lack of universal Teachings: Most of the Christian denominations have universal confessions, creeds, and or statements of faith. Lutherans (even Lutheran who are not of the same denominations) have the Concordia. The Anglican/Episcopalian Church has The Book of Common Prayer. The Catholic Church has the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church ( Even those not of the same denomination) has the Teachings of the church fathers and the Ecumenical Council or Synod of bishops. Calvinist and Presbyterians and have the Three Forms of Unity (see wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Forms_of_Unity ). Baptist, on the other hand, have almost NO universal teachings... they have some teachings that most churches teach, but nothing universal. Here is an example: I was reading a Baptist web page when I read "There are two sacraments, these sacraments are the baptist and foot washing. Some churches hold the Lord's Supper is a sacrament but this just simply isn't true." Now at the Baptist church I went to when I was younger the pastor said "You should partake of the Lord's Supper whenever you can for it is the most important sacrament"...does anyone other then me see the contradiction.
Sacramental Theology
Baptist: This is one teaching that most all Baptist hold in common; they teach that Baptism is an outward sign and that is about it, but the Bible says otherwise. Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodoxs, and Anglican/Episcopalians teach that Baptism is much more then just a sign. Here is a great quote about baptism. "It (Baptism) works forgiveness of sins, rescues from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declares."- Luther's Small Catechism. Baptism does in fact work to forgive sins and here is some passages from the Bible to prove it: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SINS"- Acts 2:38
"Get up, be baptized and WASH YOUR SINS AWAY."- Acts 22:16.
''But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."- 1Cor. 6:11
"he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life."- Titus 3:5~7
I believe these to passages are enough to back up the claims of the denominations that believe it is more then just a sign.
The Baptist of Children: Children should be Baptized. First of all Christ said to baptize "all nations" (Matthew 28:19) and children even in those day were counted as member of nations, and "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SINS. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. THE PROMISE IS FOR YOU AND CHILDREN."- Acts 2:38~39. Lets not forget the Jesus invites little children to come to him: "People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." Babies, just like us, are sinful and need what baptism offers : "All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath."
"Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit"- John 3:5~6
And don't forget that in Judaism (the Christianity before Christ) babies enter the covenant with God at eight days old.
Communion: Most all Baptist teach that during communion the bread remains just bread and the wine remains just wine, however the Bible teaches otherwise. During the last Supper Jesus said "This IS my body'' and "This IS my blood" That seems plane and simple, and it is. See in all of Jesus' parables he uses the word LIKE, but when he at the Last Supper he doesn't use the word like. Here are some Bible passages that support that Christ body and Blood are present:
"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the body of Christ?"- 1Cor. 10:16
"Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD"- 1Cor. 11:27
In fact the Bible says it is important to recognize that Christ is present in Communion:
"For anyone who who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."- 1Cor. 11:29
"accepting Jesus as my personal savior": Baptist claim that one can "accept" Jesus, and that if one doesn't accept him that person will go to hell, but this concept is unbiblical. They quote "Behold I stand at the door and knock, if any man hears my voice, I will come in"-Rev. 3:20. but this passage doesn't says anything about accepting Jesus Christ...in fact this passage sounds more symbolic then any passage about Communion... I mean really what door is this passage talking about. We are dead to sin (Eph. 2:1-3) Just as a dead person can't do or even "decide" to do anything, so a spiritually dead person cannot "decide" to become a Christian by the power of his or her own will. Jesus says "You did not choose me; but I chose you"-John 15:16. and the Holy Spirit latter says through St. Paul: "No one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit"-Cor. 12:3. For further reading on how the LCMS stand on this matter (http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=569).
I would like to discuss in this post about the differences between baptist Lutheranism. I have some personal Theological probalems with Baptist, but in this post I would like to dicuss the Theological differences.
Lack of universal Teachings: Most of the Christian denominations have universal confessions, creeds, and or statements of faith. Lutherans (even Lutheran who are not of the same denominations) have the Concordia. The Anglican/Episcopalian Church has The Book of Common Prayer. The Catholic Church has the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church ( Even those not of the same denomination) has the Teachings of the church fathers and the Ecumenical Council or Synod of bishops. Calvinist and Presbyterians and have the Three Forms of Unity (see wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Forms_of_Unity ). Baptist, on the other hand, have almost NO universal teachings... they have some teachings that most churches teach, but nothing universal. Here is an example: I was reading a Baptist web page when I read "There are two sacraments, these sacraments are the baptist and foot washing. Some churches hold the Lord's Supper is a sacrament but this just simply isn't true." Now at the Baptist church I went to when I was younger the pastor said "You should partake of the Lord's Supper whenever you can for it is the most important sacrament"...does anyone other then me see the contradiction.
Sacramental Theology
Baptist: This is one teaching that most all Baptist hold in common; they teach that Baptism is an outward sign and that is about it, but the Bible says otherwise. Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodoxs, and Anglican/Episcopalians teach that Baptism is much more then just a sign. Here is a great quote about baptism. "It (Baptism) works forgiveness of sins, rescues from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declares."- Luther's Small Catechism. Baptism does in fact work to forgive sins and here is some passages from the Bible to prove it: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SINS"- Acts 2:38
"Get up, be baptized and WASH YOUR SINS AWAY."- Acts 22:16.
''But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."- 1Cor. 6:11
"he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life."- Titus 3:5~7
I believe these to passages are enough to back up the claims of the denominations that believe it is more then just a sign.
The Baptist of Children: Children should be Baptized. First of all Christ said to baptize "all nations" (Matthew 28:19) and children even in those day were counted as member of nations, and "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SINS. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. THE PROMISE IS FOR YOU AND CHILDREN."- Acts 2:38~39. Lets not forget the Jesus invites little children to come to him: "People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." Babies, just like us, are sinful and need what baptism offers : "All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath."
"Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit"- John 3:5~6
And don't forget that in Judaism (the Christianity before Christ) babies enter the covenant with God at eight days old.
Communion: Most all Baptist teach that during communion the bread remains just bread and the wine remains just wine, however the Bible teaches otherwise. During the last Supper Jesus said "This IS my body'' and "This IS my blood" That seems plane and simple, and it is. See in all of Jesus' parables he uses the word LIKE, but when he at the Last Supper he doesn't use the word like. Here are some Bible passages that support that Christ body and Blood are present:
"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the body of Christ?"- 1Cor. 10:16
"Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD"- 1Cor. 11:27
In fact the Bible says it is important to recognize that Christ is present in Communion:
"For anyone who who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."- 1Cor. 11:29
"accepting Jesus as my personal savior": Baptist claim that one can "accept" Jesus, and that if one doesn't accept him that person will go to hell, but this concept is unbiblical. They quote "Behold I stand at the door and knock, if any man hears my voice, I will come in"-Rev. 3:20. but this passage doesn't says anything about accepting Jesus Christ...in fact this passage sounds more symbolic then any passage about Communion... I mean really what door is this passage talking about. We are dead to sin (Eph. 2:1-3) Just as a dead person can't do or even "decide" to do anything, so a spiritually dead person cannot "decide" to become a Christian by the power of his or her own will. Jesus says "You did not choose me; but I chose you"-John 15:16. and the Holy Spirit latter says through St. Paul: "No one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit"-Cor. 12:3. For further reading on how the LCMS stand on this matter (http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=569).
Friday, July 16, 2010
Apostolic succession
I wonder why American Lutherans (not counting the ELCA and LOC) aren't in valid apostolic succession and don't make use of episcopacy, however many Lutheran church bodies in Europe make use of both. I've read on the LCMS website that: "Missouri Synod does not now nor has it ever recognized this practice as divinely mandated, or required for the well-being of the church's ministry." (http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2693) I believe that there is biblical evidence for apostolic succession...however this website can explain it better then I can. (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504sbs.asp).
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Three movie that were HORRIBLE in my opinion
(WARNING THIS POST WILL CONTAIN STRONG LANGUAGE!!!)
I have seen three SHITTY movies over three days: Orphan, Satan's Little Helper, and Psycho Ward.
Orphan sucked because it was such a LONG movie and never really explain why she is so messed up, and never tell how/if the shattered family ever recoveries from their horrible ordeal.
Satan's Little Helper suck because, 1. It was very low budget. 2. the sound was weird. 3. REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, bad acting, which is made ironic by the fact that two out of four of the main characters were going to college to be actors . 4. One of the characters is SO STUPID...he bring it all on himself and other suffer do to this. 5. They never tell who the killer is or even showed his face! 6. It ends in a freaking cliff hanger!
Lastly there is Psycho Ward first of all it started out with a sex sense...made even more worse by the fact mom and Nick were in the room. Secondly it is SO slow to get to any good part, and it was almost completely void of any plot. Lastly when I tried to look up the ending so I wouldn't have to watch the whole movie I couldn't find it on Wikipedia, WHAT THE HELL, Wikipedia has every movie.
I have seen three SHITTY movies over three days: Orphan, Satan's Little Helper, and Psycho Ward.
Orphan sucked because it was such a LONG movie and never really explain why she is so messed up, and never tell how/if the shattered family ever recoveries from their horrible ordeal.
Satan's Little Helper suck because, 1. It was very low budget. 2. the sound was weird. 3. REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, bad acting, which is made ironic by the fact that two out of four of the main characters were going to college to be actors . 4. One of the characters is SO STUPID...he bring it all on himself and other suffer do to this. 5. They never tell who the killer is or even showed his face! 6. It ends in a freaking cliff hanger!
Lastly there is Psycho Ward first of all it started out with a sex sense...made even more worse by the fact mom and Nick were in the room. Secondly it is SO slow to get to any good part, and it was almost completely void of any plot. Lastly when I tried to look up the ending so I wouldn't have to watch the whole movie I couldn't find it on Wikipedia, WHAT THE HELL, Wikipedia has every movie.
The best of these Shitty movies was Orphan!
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Question to long for an answer
So yesterday I was read Acts when I noticed that they held a Council at Jerusalem. Here is the passage:
"1Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: 'Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.' 2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad. 4When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."
6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: 'Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.'
12The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written: 16 'After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, 17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things' 18that have been known for ages.
19'It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.'
22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell."
So It is clear that these are the rules to which the Gentiles that they were to obey those rules...so why don't Lutherans... It is clear that we shouldn't practice sexually immorality anyways, but what but the not so clear one: Blood and strangled animals? I know many Lutheran who eat their meat rare. Should us Gentiles still follow the rule set forth by the Council of Jerusalem?
The only problem with this question is that it is sooo long, and I wouldn't want to my pastor/priest.
"1Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: 'Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.' 2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad. 4When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."
6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: 'Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.'
12The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written: 16 'After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, 17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things' 18that have been known for ages.
19'It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.'
22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell."
So It is clear that these are the rules to which the Gentiles that they were to obey those rules...so why don't Lutherans... It is clear that we shouldn't practice sexually immorality anyways, but what but the not so clear one: Blood and strangled animals? I know many Lutheran who eat their meat rare. Should us Gentiles still follow the rule set forth by the Council of Jerusalem?
The only problem with this question is that it is sooo long, and I wouldn't want to my pastor/priest.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Why so different?
I have noticed that there are a lot of differences between Lutherans.Some tend to be very high church when it comes to practices (ELCA) and others tend to be very low church (WELS).
Some have bishops and are in valid Apostolic Succession (Lutheran churches in Porvoo Communion such as: Evangelical Lutheran Church of Iceland, Church of Norway, Church of Sweden, Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church of Lithuania; observers: Church of Denmark, Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia, ELCA, and the Lutheran Orthodox Church), but others says there is no Biblical ground for Apostolic Succession (Some German Luther Church, LCMS, and I believe the WELS) are all not in Apostolic Succession.
Most Lutheran Church Bodies see Holy Absolution as a sacrament yet according to all the people I've talked to they give one of two answers:
1. I would never wish to confess my sins to a pastor when I can go straight to God!
2. Others say "Lutheran don't go to confession that for Catholics." Infact got that answer from a girl at youth group this Sunday.
I'm friends Kim's church (I don't know which denomination see belongs to) Use Incense very mass (Divine service) my once WELS friend's church never use incense no matter the occasion, by his own account. Which all leads me to wonder why there are so many differences in Lutheran denomination.
Some have bishops and are in valid Apostolic Succession (Lutheran churches in Porvoo Communion such as: Evangelical Lutheran Church of Iceland, Church of Norway, Church of Sweden, Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church of Lithuania; observers: Church of Denmark, Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia, ELCA, and the Lutheran Orthodox Church), but others says there is no Biblical ground for Apostolic Succession (Some German Luther Church, LCMS, and I believe the WELS) are all not in Apostolic Succession.
Most Lutheran Church Bodies see Holy Absolution as a sacrament yet according to all the people I've talked to they give one of two answers:
1. I would never wish to confess my sins to a pastor when I can go straight to God!
2. Others say "Lutheran don't go to confession that for Catholics." Infact got that answer from a girl at youth group this Sunday.
I'm friends Kim's church (I don't know which denomination see belongs to) Use Incense very mass (Divine service) my once WELS friend's church never use incense no matter the occasion, by his own account. Which all leads me to wonder why there are so many differences in Lutheran denomination.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Father V.S. Pastor
As many know Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans refer to their clergy as father but while I was talking an Anglican friend of mine she said:
"I know longer feeling comfortable calling my priest father", and so I had to ask "Why?"
She said "while I was reading my Bible last night I came across Matthew 23: 8~12."
I replied "If I'm not mistaken that is where he says 'call no man your father' isn't that it?"
She said "That's right! So d0 Lutherans refer to their clergy as father?"
I replied "I've never heard my pastor called father, however I believe clergy should be called father."
she replied "Why, what about Matthew 23:8~12?"
I replied "while he does say not to call anyone father, but in that same verse he says not to call anyone your teacher and you called people teacher even in church 'Sunday school teacher'. Also I believe the Rabbis he was talking to were Rabbis just for the title. While Elijah was being taken to heaven Elisha called out to Elijah 'Father! My Father!' and Paul in Corinthians talks about his followers as his children : 'am not writing to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children. Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love who is faithful in the Lord' (1Corinthians 4:14~17). Paul also speaks of Timothy as a son 'To Timothy my true son in faith' (1Timothy 1:2) and then refers to him as son in 1Timothy 1:18, 2Timothy 1:2 (but he adds dear instead of true), and refers to Onesimus as son saying 'I appeal to you for MY SON Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains' (Philemon 10). Finally while I was read my Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings (Second Edition) at the top of the page where it say "Two Kinds Of Righteousness" it also says "By the Reverend Father Martin Luther".
She said "Thank you for thank information... now it wont be as weird when I call my priest father''.
"I know longer feeling comfortable calling my priest father", and so I had to ask "Why?"
She said "while I was reading my Bible last night I came across Matthew 23: 8~12."
I replied "If I'm not mistaken that is where he says 'call no man your father' isn't that it?"
She said "That's right! So d0 Lutherans refer to their clergy as father?"
I replied "I've never heard my pastor called father, however I believe clergy should be called father."
she replied "Why, what about Matthew 23:8~12?"
I replied "while he does say not to call anyone father, but in that same verse he says not to call anyone your teacher and you called people teacher even in church 'Sunday school teacher'. Also I believe the Rabbis he was talking to were Rabbis just for the title. While Elijah was being taken to heaven Elisha called out to Elijah 'Father! My Father!' and Paul in Corinthians talks about his followers as his children : 'am not writing to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children. Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love who is faithful in the Lord' (1Corinthians 4:14~17). Paul also speaks of Timothy as a son 'To Timothy my true son in faith' (1Timothy 1:2) and then refers to him as son in 1Timothy 1:18, 2Timothy 1:2 (but he adds dear instead of true), and refers to Onesimus as son saying 'I appeal to you for MY SON Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains' (Philemon 10). Finally while I was read my Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings (Second Edition) at the top of the page where it say "Two Kinds Of Righteousness" it also says "By the Reverend Father Martin Luther".
She said "Thank you for thank information... now it wont be as weird when I call my priest father''.
Eucharistic Adoration?
As many Catholics, Anglicans, and some of the Lutherans (whom I know) are aware yesterday was the Corpus Christi Feast (see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Christi_(feast) . As many know it is a day which people pay tribute to the Host (Christ Body), and so in the spirit of such a day I ask the Sunday school teacher a question I've been meaning to ask the my pastor:
"I've read that some Lutherans churches (even in the LCMS) practice Eucharistic Adoration (see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_adoration#Lutheran_belief ) so why does our, my ELCA friend's church does so why not ours?"
Her response:
" It seems like the more liberal the church the quicker to practice Eucharistic Adoration, and besides the Host is something to be received not worshipped."
Then I started thing "It seems the high church is the quicker it is to practice Eucharistic Adoration...it doesn't seem to have anything to do the being liberal or not", but I didn't say that aloud. Then I started think about the second part of her answer and I thought to myself "I see your point however I kinda disagree. I mean yes we should worship God alone, but the Host ,according to the Bible and the Catechism, is Christ body...so in itself Christ."
When I told this to my Anglican friend she told me that I sould ask my Pastor but I'm always afaird of asking question, because I'm afraid of either waisting his time or asking a stupid question. Those kinds of questions are for the internet.
"I've read that some Lutherans churches (even in the LCMS) practice Eucharistic Adoration (see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_adoration#Lutheran_belief ) so why does our, my ELCA friend's church does so why not ours?"
Her response:
" It seems like the more liberal the church the quicker to practice Eucharistic Adoration, and besides the Host is something to be received not worshipped."
Then I started thing "It seems the high church is the quicker it is to practice Eucharistic Adoration...it doesn't seem to have anything to do the being liberal or not", but I didn't say that aloud. Then I started think about the second part of her answer and I thought to myself "I see your point however I kinda disagree. I mean yes we should worship God alone, but the Host ,according to the Bible and the Catechism, is Christ body...so in itself Christ."
When I told this to my Anglican friend she told me that I sould ask my Pastor but I'm always afaird of asking question, because I'm afraid of either waisting his time or asking a stupid question. Those kinds of questions are for the internet.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Confession
Many times me and my friends debate over whether or whether not confession is biblical. As a High Church Lutheran I firmly believe confession is a sacrament. I will explain ,in this post, why confession is Biblical.
OT:
The first act of confession to a priest, in the Bible, is in the Old Testament. In 2 Samuel 12:13, after having committed adultery with Bathsheba God sent Nathan to David. After telling a story to prove a point and David repenting David said "I have sinned against the Lord" Nathan replied, "The Lord has taken away your sin."
NT:
The New Testament has many passages about confession. One of my favorites is John 20:23, after having coming back from the dead, Jesus appeared to his disciples, And breathed the the breath of the Holy Spirit saying "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, THEY ARE NOT FORGIVEN" Then there is where Christ gave St. Peter the keys. Now I've heard some people say "Well those passages don't mention people confessing, but only that clergy can forgive sins (general confession)", but James 5:16 "CONFESS YOUR SINS TO EACH OTHER AND PRAY FOR EACH OTHER SO THAT YOU MAY BE HEALED." That passage does mention confession.
Those are just a few passages that prove confession is Biblical.
OT:
The first act of confession to a priest, in the Bible, is in the Old Testament. In 2 Samuel 12:13, after having committed adultery with Bathsheba God sent Nathan to David. After telling a story to prove a point and David repenting David said "I have sinned against the Lord" Nathan replied, "The Lord has taken away your sin."
NT:
The New Testament has many passages about confession. One of my favorites is John 20:23, after having coming back from the dead, Jesus appeared to his disciples, And breathed the the breath of the Holy Spirit saying "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, THEY ARE NOT FORGIVEN" Then there is where Christ gave St. Peter the keys. Now I've heard some people say "Well those passages don't mention people confessing, but only that clergy can forgive sins (general confession)", but James 5:16 "CONFESS YOUR SINS TO EACH OTHER AND PRAY FOR EACH OTHER SO THAT YOU MAY BE HEALED." That passage does mention confession.
Those are just a few passages that prove confession is Biblical.
Monday, May 31, 2010
To Catholic for Lutherans?
Something me and my mom are almost always auguring about is the fact that I called Divine Service "mass" and I make the sign of the cross both before and after I pray.
However neither of these things aren't Lutheran. I called the Divine Service "mass" because that is both the historical name and the name that Philip Melancthon used in the Augsburg Confession and the Apology of the Augsburg Confession (XXIV). Whenever I post something on facebook about Divine Service all my friends from church say something to the affect of "It's not very Lutheran to use the term Mass", but even Lutherans in other contries use the term mass (see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_(liturgy)#Liturgy_of_the_Eucharist )
In Luther's Small Catechism use says to "Make the sign of the cross" both in the morning and before one goes to bed. I know some Lutheran (manely ELCA) who cross themselfs whenever they pray (also see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_of_the_Cross#Lutheranism ).
However neither of these things aren't Lutheran. I called the Divine Service "mass" because that is both the historical name and the name that Philip Melancthon used in the Augsburg Confession and the Apology of the Augsburg Confession (XXIV). Whenever I post something on facebook about Divine Service all my friends from church say something to the affect of "It's not very Lutheran to use the term Mass", but even Lutherans in other contries use the term mass (see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_(liturgy)#Liturgy_of_the_Eucharist )
In Luther's Small Catechism use says to "Make the sign of the cross" both in the morning and before one goes to bed. I know some Lutheran (manely ELCA) who cross themselfs whenever they pray (also see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_of_the_Cross#Lutheranism ).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)