Beliefs of Fundamentalists Christians

Started by Dave Likeness, April 21, 2013, 09:44:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Pastor Ted Crandall

Quote from: Jay. on April 23, 2013, 09:32:09 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on April 23, 2013, 08:11:27 PM
Quote from: Jay. on April 23, 2013, 07:40:27 PMProblem is that BJS clearly uses the term in a positive way ... you on the other hand clearly use the term with a great amount of angst and disdain ... which still begs the question of how and why you view the phrase "my grandfather's church" in the manner you do.
Context, Jay.  I responded to a reference to repristination.
Yup ... context ....
Quote from: John Mundinger on April 23, 2013, 10:50:22 AM
In my opinion, the short-coming in the LCMS is that there are too many interested in a rose-colored repristination of not just LCMS history but Lutheran history.  The notion of promoting the idea that we are still worshiping in "my grandfather's church" is bogus.  We ought to be the church in which our grandchildren will be worshiping!
... and you stated "I responded to a reference to repristination."  Defining "repristination" as "renewal of purity" you apparently feel the renewal of purity is bogus. 

Is contending for the faith once delivered by the saints really that bogus?

It would appear to be so.  It has been my experience that those who disdain their gradfather's church are unwittingly rejecting also the faith of our fathers. 

David Garner

Quote from: Jay. on April 23, 2013, 05:53:01 PM
Quote from: LutherMan on April 23, 2013, 04:42:59 PM
Quote from: Confessional Lutheran on April 23, 2013, 03:46:58 PM
What I miss most in My Parents, and My Grand Fathers, and His Parents, is Version of the Communion Service from the 1944 Version of the Lutheran Hymnal.
The service is included in Lutheran Service Book...
Almost ... the sung liturgy retained the 1941 wording ... the spoken liturgy contains update language. ;)

I've heard nothing but good things about LSB, but let me say ....... UGH!

Why would they do that?  Contrary to what most people think, we who hold to more traditionalist liturgical views have no problem with updating language, etc.  I certainly have no stumbles when I visit a Greek parish (they use updated language for everything, at least for the parts they do in English  :P ).  But the concern I have with switching up language is when it is constantly done, memorization is made more difficult.  Something Luther taught me early on in my Lutheran days was that the catechism should be in a common language and not changed frequently, so that it can be memorized.  This applies as easily to the Liturgy.  The whole point is to memorize it -- to have God's words hammered in your ears week after week after week.  I forget how effective that is until Lent rolls around and some of our service books have differing words for the prayers and Psalm 50, etc.  Even reading them off the page I tend to revert to what I have memorized.  So while we have some sweeping up around our own backdoor to do in that regard, let me repeat -- UGH!
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

David Garner

Quote from: John Mundinger on April 23, 2013, 09:46:29 PM
Quote from: Jay. on April 23, 2013, 09:32:09 PM... and you stated "I responded to a reference to repristination."  Defining "repristination" as "renewal of purity" you apparently feel the renewal of purity is bogus. 

Renewing purity is not bogus.  But, I don't think that was how that term was used in the post to which I responded and I'm not convinced that perpetuating grandfathers' churches is necessarily and exercise in renewing purity is, either.  The challenge is to know what to hold onto and what to be willing to let go of and how to make what is retained relevant.

I don't buy into the idea that the Church should constantly strive to be "relevant," especially where that means paring away portions of the faith in order to make it so.

The Church, in terms of the world, should be transformative.  Becoming "relevant" turns the Church from an anchor holding fast into a leaf blowing with the winds.  That quickly leads to not being related to the Church in any real sense (witness "bishop" Spong, etc.).  So the particular church in question ends up "relevant" to the world, but not "related" to the Church.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

George Erdner

Quote from: David Garner on April 24, 2013, 07:10:35 AM
I don't buy into the idea that the Church should constantly strive to be "relevant," especially where that means paring away portions of the faith in order to make it so.

The Church, in terms of the world, should be transformative.  Becoming "relevant" turns the Church from an anchor holding fast into a leaf blowing with the winds.  That quickly leads to not being related to the Church in any real sense (witness "bishop" Spong, etc.).  So the particular church in question ends up "relevant" to the world, but not "related" to the Church.


There is "relevant" and there is "relevant". Changing God's truth is wrong. Reapplying it in changing circumstances without changing is something else. I wonder how many people don't have the slightest clue about what sheep and sheep herding is all about who therefore have a totally twisted understanding of what it really means when Jesus is referred to as "the good shepherd".

David Garner

Quote from: George Erdner on April 24, 2013, 07:39:20 AM
Quote from: David Garner on April 24, 2013, 07:10:35 AM
I don't buy into the idea that the Church should constantly strive to be "relevant," especially where that means paring away portions of the faith in order to make it so.

The Church, in terms of the world, should be transformative.  Becoming "relevant" turns the Church from an anchor holding fast into a leaf blowing with the winds.  That quickly leads to not being related to the Church in any real sense (witness "bishop" Spong, etc.).  So the particular church in question ends up "relevant" to the world, but not "related" to the Church.


There is "relevant" and there is "relevant". Changing God's truth is wrong. Reapplying it in changing circumstances without changing is something else. I wonder how many people don't have the slightest clue about what sheep and sheep herding is all about who therefore have a totally twisted understanding of what it really means when Jesus is referred to as "the good shepherd".

Such things can be taught, though.  I didn't instinctively know that, for example, the ten thousand talents forgiven by the Lord in the parable of the unforgiving servant was so large he literally would never be able to repay it.  But I was taught that.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

Charles_Austin

#65
Pastor Crandall writes:
It would appear to be so.  It has been my experience that those who disdain their gradfather's church are unwittingly rejecting also the faith of our fathers. 

I comment:
Hogwash! Squared hogwash! It is not a matter of "disdain." I do not "disdain" the lime-green '49 Chevy which so enriched my life as a teenager; but I do not want to drive it today.
     I do not even want to be in the church of my father and mother, even though that is the place where I was taught the faith, began to sense my vocation to the ministry, learned a lot about socialization and leadership, and generally had a rippin' good time. That was then. This is now.
     That church kept women in the kitchen, and squinted at my mother because she had a full-time job outside the home and could not take part in one of the "Circles," named for a biblical woman like Dorcas or Phoebe or Lydia.
     That church denied the gifts of women as pastors.
     That church had two settings of the liturgy, with almost no variation within those settings. Though obedient and observant, I wondered about why we had all those "thees" and "thous" and "thines" which kept the language of prayer so distinct from the language of my life that it was sometimes hard to connect.
     That church condescendingly let the "youth" - once a year, no more! - bring some contemporary music to the service.
     That church did not want to discuss desegregation because the topic was "too controversial."
     That church relished the fact that we were "not Catholic," and we should never ever forget it. Unkind appellations for fasting Catholics like "mackeral snappers" were acceptable.
     Ditto for Episcopalians (too snooty), Presbyterians (too much education), and Baptists (too low class.)
     That church made confirmation a grueling three-year trek with memorization, tests, admonitions from the pastor, parental pressure to do well and a "public examination" on a stage in the fellowship hall before as many members as wanted to come. (Wait! Maybe there's a part of "that church" I'd like to see again. ;D )
      That church had a "modernist" streak, I guess, in that it taught me that we did not read the Bible as did the fundamentalist Baptists and others, but that we applied intelligence and modern knowledge to scripture.
     The essentials of the faith taught in that church remains with me today, 61 years after I began confirmation class and service as an acolyte.
     But some of the packaging of that faith and the interpretation of that faith and the application of that faith and the way that faith interacts with the world have changed; and I thank God for those changes.
     
     

Norman Teigen

Amen, Pastor Austin, and again, Amen.

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod
Norman Teigen

John Mundinger

Quote from: Pastor Ted Crandall on April 24, 2013, 06:29:50 AMIt would appear to be so.  It has been my experience that those who disdain their gradfather's church are unwittingly rejecting also the faith of our fathers.

I do not disdain the faith of our fathers.  I just think it is error to celebrate the adiaphora of our fathers as pure doctrine.
Lifelong Evangelical Lutheran layman

Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbour, does not yet understand them as he ought.  St. Augustine

John Mundinger

Quote from: David Garner on April 24, 2013, 07:10:35 AMI don't buy into the idea that the Church should constantly strive to be "relevant," especially where that means paring away portions of the faith in order to make it so.

The Church, in terms of the world, should be transformative.  Becoming "relevant" turns the Church from an anchor holding fast into a leaf blowing with the winds.  That quickly leads to not being related to the Church in any real sense (witness "bishop" Spong, etc.).  So the particular church in question ends up "relevant" to the world, but not "related" to the Church.

Reader Garner - I think we are debating semantics and not principle.

I DO NOT advocate paring away the central teachings of Christianity.  And, I understand those central teachings from a decidedly Lutheran bias and, thus, I do not advocate paring away any of those central teachings as they are understood in the context of justification by grace, through faith; the revelation of God's Incarnate Word through God's Inspired Word, correctly understood as Law and Gospel; Baptism as a daily washing and regeneration; and, the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament.

I do advocate for making a clear distinction between core doctrine and matters adiophora and a willingness to let go of those things adiophora that could be stumbling blocks to unbelievers.

I agree that the Church should be transformative.  But, the Church cannot be transformative for those who think it is irrelevant or, worse, a negative influence in our society.
Lifelong Evangelical Lutheran layman

Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbour, does not yet understand them as he ought.  St. Augustine

Jay Michael

Quote from: John Mundinger on April 24, 2013, 10:27:13 AM
I just think it is error to celebrate the adiaphora of our fathers as pure doctrine.
It is easy to make such vague statements ... but what are specific examples of turning adiaphora into doctrine?

John Mundinger

Quote from: Jay. on April 24, 2013, 11:06:44 AM
Quote from: John Mundinger on April 24, 2013, 10:27:13 AM
I just think it is error to celebrate the adiaphora of our fathers as pure doctrine.
It is easy to make such vague statements ... but what are specific examples of turning adiaphora into doctrine?

Jay - I would approach it from the other end.  Given my Lutheran bias, if it is in the catechism (including corresponding sections from the Confessions) it is doctrine.  If not, it is open to question.
Lifelong Evangelical Lutheran layman

Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbour, does not yet understand them as he ought.  St. Augustine

Pastor Ted Crandall

Quote from: John Mundinger on April 24, 2013, 11:18:06 AM
Quote from: Jay. on April 24, 2013, 11:06:44 AM
Quote from: John Mundinger on April 24, 2013, 10:27:13 AM
I just think it is error to celebrate the adiaphora of our fathers as pure doctrine.
It is easy to make such vague statements ... but what are specific examples of turning adiaphora into doctrine?

Jay - I would approach it from the other end.  Given my Lutheran bias, if it is in the catechism (including corresponding sections from the Confessions) it is doctrine.  If not, it is open to question.

What if what you teach and believe is not mentioned directly in the Catechism, but contradicts another part of our Confessions?  Would you consider that an open question? 


Quote from: Charles_Austin on April 24, 2013, 08:40:24 AM
That church had a "modernist" streak, I guess, in that it taught me that we did not read the Bible as did the fundamentalist Baptists and others, but that we applied intelligence and modern knowledge to scripture.

Well, that certainly explains a lot... 

Charles_Austin

I wrote
That church had a "modernist" streak, I guess, in that it taught me that we did not read the Bible as did the fundamentalist Baptists and others, but that we applied intelligence and modern knowledge to scripture.

And Pastor Crandall opines:
Well, that certainly explains a lot...

I comment:
     Translation of the above: Well, nuts to him, then!
     What it is intended to explain, Pastor Crandall, is that there is a whole segment of long-time, even "traditional" Lutheranism that is not fundamentalist when it comes to scripture, as you are.
     Matter of fact, back in those days and extending into the 1960s, there were significant numbers of lay people, pastors and theologians in the LCMS holding and supporting this "modernist" view.
   Your vicious purge in the 1970s, of course, drove most of those people underground or out of your Synod. But as I have noted, the "modernist" view cannot be completely squashed because it is of the Holy Spirit. We maintain the faith, but not a narrow biblicism that diminishes God, faith and scripture.
     That does not enable you to call all of us Unitarians or Deists, because we are not that. But you will try.

A Catholic Lutheran

Am I missing something?  Did someone actually call someone else a "Unitarian"?  Because I must have missed that one...

And just for the record, I would not call the ELCA "Unitarian" but rather "sectarian."
But I digress...

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS

Jay Michael

Quote from: John Mundinger on April 24, 2013, 11:18:06 AM
Quote from: Jay. on April 24, 2013, 11:06:44 AM
Quote from: John Mundinger on April 24, 2013, 10:27:13 AM
I just think it is error to celebrate the adiaphora of our fathers as pure doctrine.
It is easy to make such vague statements ... but what are specific examples of turning adiaphora into doctrine?
Jay - I would approach it from the other end.  Given my Lutheran bias, if it is in the catechism (including corresponding sections from the Confessions) it is doctrine.  If not, it is open to question.
It appears much more likely that it is easy for you to make vague generalized accusations ... but much harder to be specific ... and then be able to defend the specifics that you finally list. 

Let us talk specifics!

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk