tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post3440055649246957633..comments2024-01-02T16:09:57.364-07:00Comments on Intrepid Lutherans: Toward true confessional Lutheran unity in the WELSIntrepid Lutheranshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05867580862562801804noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-72696638550487748032010-07-30T12:21:35.608-07:002010-07-30T12:21:35.608-07:00Joe,
I think some of our statements could be word...Joe,<br /><br />I think some of our statements could be worded more clearly. The one you quoted above seems to imply that those who do not believe in Christ already have a righteous status before God. The Scriptures don't speak that way about unbelievers (aka, "the wicked"). While God's mercy clearly extends to all and Christ's sacrifice is certainly the propitiation for all, it's also clear that one's righteous status before God is only in Christ, not apart from Christ, and that one becomes "in Christ" through faith alone.<br /><br />What many are trying to guard against is the notion that "God has done his part. Now you have to do yours: You have to believe!" That's wrong, and we're right to guard against such a notion. Faith is not man's work that man must complete to be justified. It is the work of God as his Holy Spirit creates justifying faith through the preaching of the Gospel.<br /><br />Another thing that people are trying to guard against is the notion that man's faith effects a change in the heart of God, as if God were angry until man complied with the "faith requirement," because of which God puts his anger aside and finally forgives. That, too, is wrong.<br /><br />Luther speaks of forgiveness won (at the cross of Christ) and forgiveness distributed (through the preaching of the Gospel). What is the objective reality conveyed in the preaching of the Gospel? It is the <em> promise </em> that, by faith in Christ's atoning sacrifice, we have the favor of a loving Father. The promise is objective (true, whether you believe it or not). Christ's sacrifice is objective (a valid Substitute for all men). God's will for the salvation of all men is objective. The righteous status, however, is imputed only to faith.<br /><br />Essentially, there are two verdicts of which Scripture speaks: condemnation for those who remain in Adam (the natural state of us all), and justification for those who are in Christ. There are not two justifications. There is one justification, pronounced upon Christ as the Substitute for all men (in this sense, it is objective). When the Spirit brings us into Christ by faith, then we, too, share in that verdict.<br /><br />The answer you mentioned hearing above about being "declared righteous" and then "made righteous" through faith is incorrect.<br /><br />There are so many Scripture passages to quote, and so many references to this in the Confessions. I'll save that for a future post.<br /><br />A "contributing factor to some of our other ills"? Perhaps. We need a firm grasp on the doctrine of justification, and we need to do an honest exegesis of the passages in question.<br /><br />And we will do well to study the Confessions as our primary aid in understanding the Scriptural teaching of Justification by faith.Rev. Paul A. Rydeckihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01447491206453142100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-84494023020824480192010-07-28T12:55:47.973-07:002010-07-28T12:55:47.973-07:00Pastor Rydecki,
You stated this in a response to ...Pastor Rydecki,<br /><br />You stated this in a response to Brett Meyer: <br /><br />"In spite of some inconsistencies, unclear terminology or inaccurate statements that may have been made by some over the years, I do not believe that any WELS pastor, as far as I know, teaches Universalism. Our seminary does not teach that a person can be eternally saved apart from faith in Christ, or that unbelievers are counted as righteous before God while they remain separated from Christ through unbelief."<br /><br />And yet if you read the following excerpt from "This We Believe" we do teach a justification apart from faith: <br /><br />"IV. JUSTIFICATION BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH<br /><br />1. We believe that God has justified all sinners, that is, he has declared them righteous for the sake of Christ. This is the central message of Scripture upon which the very existence of the church depends. It is a message relevant to people of all times and places, of all races and social levels, for "the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men" (Romans 5:18). All need forgiveness of sins before God, and Scripture proclaims that all have been justified, for "the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men" (Romans 5:18)."<br /><br />I have to commend you on the rest of your response to Brett as your confession was quite scriptural with the correct usage of the word atonement in lieu of the usual suspects of forgiveness, justification and righteousness of which you used carefully within the context of faith. Thank you.<br /><br />I have heard WELS pastors say that the sinner is declared righteous by the death of Christ and made righteous through faith, but I have a hard time with this. This is God we are talking about. If he makes a declaration is it not so? He can not lie!<br /><br />I am not here to bring down WELS either, but only on a quest for true scriptural doctrine. This tale of Subjective Justification and Universal Justification in my opinion is junk. I was brought up in the WELS Synod and was never taught this as a confirmand. How do you reconcile Abraham in all of it, the father of our faith?<br /><br />I know you and the other Pastors are in a tough spot when it comes to these kinds of discussion especially since so much ink has been devoted to it over the years in favor of two justifications. Is it possible that this may be a contributing factor to some of our other ills?<br /><br />Peace in Christ,<br />Joe KrohnJoe Krohnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08675123326627773329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-30337067670379199642010-06-05T04:16:31.469-07:002010-06-05T04:16:31.469-07:00Brian P Westgate opines, "Mr. Gorman, I don&#...Brian P Westgate opines, "Mr. Gorman, I don't think you understand how the Common Service came about. Read what the men who put together say about it, such as Jacobs and Horn I. It's straight from the Kirchenordnungen."<br /><br />I have read their statements. The Common Service is straight from the Kirchenordnungen. The 1549 BCP is a Lutheran church order, ". . . the first Prayerbook of Edward VI, 1549 (whose place among Lutheran liturgies is shown in our chart) entitles us to free use of the inimitable English translations given in that book." The Lutheran Sources of the Common Service by Edward Horn. "There is an extremely close agreement between this first Prayer Book of the Church of England and the Common Service" Preface to Common Service, 1888.<br /><br />I will concede, after comparing the 1549 BCP and 1888 Common Service communion liturgies, that there is much less agreement than I would have expected based on the Preface statement. The extensive differences between the two cannot be resolved as "necessary" changes.<br /><br />Brian P Westgate opines, "You got your definition of "strictly liturgical" from somewhere. If from a dictionary, it probably was biased towards the Anglicans."<br /><br />Wikipedia, but they rejected it as being too restrictive.<br /><br />Brian P Westgate opines, "Now on CW, no argument there!"<br /><br />That was my main point anyway!Mr. Daniel Gormannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-77180955155386502282010-06-04T12:50:58.960-07:002010-06-04T12:50:58.960-07:00Mr. Gorman, I don't think you understand how t...Mr. Gorman, I don't think you understand how the Common Service came about. Read what the men who put together say about it, such as Jacobs and Horn I. It's straight from the Kirchenordnungen.<br /><br />You got your definition of "strictly liturgical" from somewhere. If from a dictionary, it probably was biased towards the Anglicans.<br /><br />Now on CW, no argument there!Brian P Westgatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15383132438753364755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-48836477193717951662010-06-03T21:29:10.281-07:002010-06-03T21:29:10.281-07:00Brian P Westgate opines, "I fear you're w...Brian P Westgate opines, "I fear you're working with a definition that is biased towards the Anglicans and pays no attention to the Lutherans. We do well to remember that our reformation, NOT the Anglican one, is the conservative reformation." <br /><br />No! Not at all. Anglican Church doctrine is a heterodox mixture of Papist and Calvinist errors. The 1549 BCP is the Anglican Church's first and most orthodox prayer book; however, it does contain many errors. Any Lutheran liturgy would require revision of 1549 BCP text. However, Lutheran liturgy opposes unnecessary changes to the 1549 BCP text for the reasons specified in "Nevertheless, we confess…"<br /><br />When orthodox Lutheran synods were converting to English, most chose the 1549 BCP to be their prime liturgy. They could have and perhaps should have simply translated their own historic liturgies into English. One exception was the ELS. The Evangelical Lutheran Hymnary includes the 1549 BCP Service (Rite Two). However, the prime liturgy of the ELS is a translation of Danish-Norwegian Rite of 1685 (Rite One).<br /><br />The Elephant in the room is WELS Christian Worship. Intrepid Lutherans must confront the fact that the WELS hymnal does not meet the criteria of "Nevertheless, we confess…"Mr. Daniel Gormannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-17626782969126189492010-06-03T17:27:14.735-07:002010-06-03T17:27:14.735-07:00Well, if that's the case Mr. Gorman, than the ...Well, if that's the case Mr. Gorman, than the Ukrainian Lutheran Church isn't liturgical, and neither is the well-known liturgical parish Zion Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Detroit, MI, or the editors of Gottesdienst, the Motley Magpie, and The Bride of Christ, and so on and so forth. I fear you're working with a definition that is biased towards the Anglicans and pays no attention to the Lutherans. We do well to remember that our reformation, NOT the Anglican one, is the conservative reformation.Brian P Westgatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15383132438753364755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-74820310575635780082010-06-02T20:24:00.389-07:002010-06-02T20:24:00.389-07:00Jonathan,
Thank you for your observations. For m...Jonathan, <br /><br />Thank you for your observations. For myself, I have always believed that the old saying, "lex orandi est lex credendi" is a very good guide to how we worship. I ask myself how what I am doing or proposing serves our unique profession as confessional Lutherans and also members of the Church catholic, and thus serves that portion of Christ's Church over which he has made me an overseer. I hope and pray that such a guide is used more and more by all our brother Shepherds. This would solve a lot of problems!Pastor Spencerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01321516963313421661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-85394932438996527522010-06-02T19:17:24.966-07:002010-06-02T19:17:24.966-07:00You rightly caution against man-centered worship s...You rightly caution against man-centered worship style. Isn't it also helpful to caution against "worldly" worship style? So much of contemporary worship style mimics worldly entertainment style, especially the soloist at a mike taking the place of a congregation joining in singing. Yes, guitars, etc. are certainly adiaphora, but when one walks into church and sees the drum sets, mikes, electric guitars, etc. up front, one wonders what the congregation or minister is trying to do, and one feels uneasy about this very "worldly" issue.<br /><br />WELS seems reluctant to discuss "style" of worship, since it is in the adiaphora camp. But of course that very fact demonstrates the need for discernment in worship style, certainly including a humble discernment about whether a worldly influence is shaping our worship style. I Cor.9:22 dare never be separated from I Cor. 10:23!<br /><br />Let's face it: style of worship both reflects and affects one's view of God!<br /><br />Jonathan Rupprecht<br />WLS 1978Jonathan Rupprechtnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-11946288070569415022010-06-02T12:36:52.493-07:002010-06-02T12:36:52.493-07:00Rev. Fr. Spencer, thank you for your response. I ...Rev. Fr. Spencer, thank you for your response. I will think through your statements carefully in a sincere attempt to understand exactly what you were teaching.<br /><br />Rev. Rydecki, thank you for your response concerning this blogs confession concerning Justification. My question was simply to know what you teach concerning the central doctrine. As your blog has confirmed, this is pivotal to understanding whether or not this is a Christian endeavor. <br /><br />You state, <i>"Contrary to popular belief, we really are not here to bring down WELS as an institution or to burn our brothers at the stake."</i> I assure you that it is not my objective either. It's unfortunate that efforts to clarify what someone teaches about the central doctrine, and to promote it using Scripture and the BOC, are received by some as attempts to tear people or organizations down. Surely you are receiving these comments already concerning this blogs desire for pure doctrine and right practice as is inferred in a comment above.<br /><br />I believe you, by the grace of God, provided an outstanding confession concerning Justifcation by faith alone.<br /><br />This is your blog to do with as you wish. I appreciate that you allowed my questions and comments. I do believe that to solve the problems caused by the New Age Church Growth doctrines, methods and practices its central enabling doctrine of Universal Objective Justification as taught and confessed in the above linked WELS essays will have to be dealt with in great detail, faithfully applying Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.<br /><br />The Lord's will be done.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />Brett MeyerBrett Meyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15916121605136512091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-51650217311876457992010-06-02T12:08:47.154-07:002010-06-02T12:08:47.154-07:00Brian P Westgate opines, "There are two litur...Brian P Westgate opines, "There are two liturgical problems with using the 1549 BCP as the litmus test of being "liturgical." They are these: Cranmer ahd already begun to innovate in 1549, and he includes a revision of the Roman Canon. And Cranmer had no influence on the sources of the Common Service, the Kirchenordnungen." <br /><br />The 1549 BCP may not have been "liturgical" when it was written but it is now. After 500 plus years of constant use (the Anglican Church still uses the 1549 BCP), the unnecessary changes of Cranmer and earlier authors have become part of the liturgy. With the exception of necessary changes (e.g., doctrinal errors are never necessary), modern day Common Service texts must conform to the 1549 BCP text to be considered liturgical in the strictest sense.Mr. Daniel Gormannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-91971516689088899292010-06-02T10:23:45.895-07:002010-06-02T10:23:45.895-07:00I'm interested in where this is going but I ha...I'm interested in where this is going but I have to say that you already seem to be straying to far into the ditch on the other side. Two examples: 1)Your approach to the discussion leaves a lot to be desired. The cry that I've always listened to is Ad Fontes. I'm happy that you're studying the confessions, and maybe it's just an oversight, but many of the things you believe are listed without going to scripture. This is not the way to build unity.<br /><br />2)In your what we believe you talk about people apeing a man-centered worship style, which seems like a standard that we just can't use, because it judges the heart which we can't do.<br /><br />Yours in Christ,<br />David Endorf<br />Pastor St. John-St. Peter, Cleveland WIDavidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14202241467530237746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-26329035053993807882010-06-02T09:46:15.628-07:002010-06-02T09:46:15.628-07:00Brett, (regarding your first comment)
Having read...Brett, (regarding your first comment)<br /><br />Having read some of your comments in the blogosphere, I know this issue is dear to your heart. I also know that a debate over terms that have been used and statements that have been made on this issue can become all-consuming.<br /><br />We posted your question because you have the right to ask it. But we are not in a position at the moment to conduct a thorough review of the essays you linked to, or to pick through statements made by WELS pastors over the decades. Contrary to popular belief, we really are not here to bring down WELS as an institution or to burn our brothers at the stake.<br /><br />In spite of some inconsistencies, unclear terminology or inaccurate statements that may have been made by some over the years, I do not believe that any WELS pastor, as far as I know, teaches Universalism. Our seminary does not teach that a person can be eternally saved apart from faith in Christ, or that unbelievers are counted as righteous before God while they remain separated from Christ through unbelief. <br /><br />You asked for us at Intrepid Lutherans to clarify our confession about the Chief Article. That I cannot hesitate to do. <br /><br /><em>We confess that God wants all men to be saved, not just some (1 Tim. 2:4).<br /><br />We confess that Christ’s atoning death on the cross was the full payment for the sins of the world, not only of those who believe (1 Tim. 2:5-6, 1 Jn. 2:2).<br /><br />We confess “that sins are forgiven for the sake of Christ as our Atoning Sacrifice, ‘whom God put forward as a propitiation’ (Romans 3:25). Furthermore, Paul adds, ‘by faith.’ Therefore, this atonement benefits us in this way: We receive the mercy promised in Him by faith and set it against God’s wrath and judgment (AP IV:82).<br /><br />We confess that this justifying faith is not man’s work, but the gift of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 2:8-9, AP IV:64), and that “faith justifies and saves, not because it is a worthy work in itself, but only because it receives the promised mercy” (AP IV:56).<br /><br />We confess that “God cannot be interacted with, God cannot be grasped, except through the Word. So justification happens through the Word, just as Paul says in Romans 1:16, ‘[The Gospel] is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes’” (AP IV:67).</em><br /><br />This is obviously a summary statement. I don’t know if that will satisfy you, but it will have to do for now.Rev. Paul A. Rydeckihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01447491206453142100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-65068890725334345602010-06-02T09:39:43.337-07:002010-06-02T09:39:43.337-07:00Greetings, Brett! Thanks for your comments and que...Greetings, Brett! Thanks for your comments and questions. I am the author of the devotion that was posted, so I will answer your question on that item. I apologize if I was not clear. The devotion was a truncated version of a much longer sermon, and as sometimes happens, full explanations are not always evident. In any case, all I meant is that sometimes the devil over-reaches, that is, God allows him to push us too far for his own dark purpose, and instead of driving us away from Christ, drives us to our knees, and to Christ's mercy and love. After all, Satan may be smart, but God is smarter, and just as with our Lord's Passion, uses the devil's own ambition and lust for victory to actually seal his defeat. My intention was to give my sheep solace and comfort, so that even in the midst of the ebb and flow of their own good fight of faith, they would hold on to the fact that God will do what it takes to see through safely to their heavenly home. I hope this clarifies the point.Rev. Fr. Spencerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898457910378746416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-19589376915801453952010-06-02T08:00:49.944-07:002010-06-02T08:00:49.944-07:00Lito! Good to see you here on the blog. We'r...Lito! Good to see you here on the blog. We're doing what we can.<br /><br />And congratulations on your recent degree. Quite an accomplishment!Rev. Paul A. Rydeckihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01447491206453142100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-22496364922053015252010-06-01T22:18:38.466-07:002010-06-01T22:18:38.466-07:00Gentlemen, I apologize for seeming to stack my que...Gentlemen, I apologize for seeming to stack my questions but reading through your blog I came across this statement in your Devotions page, last paragraph of your first devotion entitled Homily on Exodus 17:8-16, <i>"Eventually, the power and love of God, and the fear and greed of our Old Adversary combine to give us the peace of knowing that we are saved from the domination of sin, and that the true paradise of heaven awaits us to enjoy forever!"</i><br /><br />How is it that the power and love of God combines with the fear and greed of Satan? And that to give us peace?<br /><br />As Scripture teaches and the Confessions confirm, Satan has been defeated, crushed so there isn't a combining of evil and good. Through the gracious work of the Holy Spirit in working contrition and faith through the Word alone, and through the Word and water in Baptism, man dies to sin, having been under the Law, and is raised again to life in Christ, to live under grace through the righteousness of faith. Faith alone makes of an unjust man in God's sight, a just man in God's sight.<br /><br />71] <b>"but we maintain this, that properly and truly, by faith itself, we are for Christ's sake accounted righteous, or are acceptable to God. And because "to be justified" means that out of unjust men just men are made, or born again, it means also that they are pronounced or accounted just. For Scripture speaks in both ways. [The term "to be justified" is used in two ways: to denote, being converted or regenerated; again, being accounted righteous. Accordingly we wish first to show this, that faith alone makes of an unjust, a just man, i.e., receives remission of sins".</b><br />http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php<br /><br />In Christ,<br />Brett MeyerBrett Meyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15916121605136512091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-79075726000004358152010-06-01T18:35:57.386-07:002010-06-01T18:35:57.386-07:00I see that Rev. Rydecki is active here. I admire t...I see that Rev. Rydecki is active here. I admire the intent and spirit of this blog. Finally a blog which is not afraid to tackle face to face the hard issues that everyone knows is there but no one dared to speak about.<br /><br />I look forward to the discussions.<br /><br />LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-3815539704127113532010-06-01T18:00:44.203-07:002010-06-01T18:00:44.203-07:00In your Intrepid Lutherans inaugural post it is st...In your Intrepid Lutherans inaugural post it is stated, <i>"Many would like to simply agree to disagree on these matters rather than disturb the Church over them. That would be understandable if the issues revolved around personal preference. But the issues are theological, not personal. True spiritual unity is not preserved by ignoring theology."</i><br /><br />In the spirit of this fine, open and honest statement could you clarify Intrepid Lutherans confession concerning the central article of Christ's doctrine. Do you confess that Universal Objective Justification (UOJ) as taught by the overwhelming majority of clergy in the WELS is correct? Since there isn't a document equal to the Book of Concord that we can point to for the specific doctrinal teaching concerning UOJ I will link the WELS public statements of confession concerning this doctrine for your reference and either agreement or disagreement.<br /><br />http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BuchholzJustification.pdf<br />http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BeckerJustification.PDF<br />http://www.wlsessays.net/files/ZarlingJustification.pdf<br /><br />I look forward to your response as babies, children, women, men, blogs, churches, synods, nations and countries stand or fall upon this the chief article of Christian faith as you correctly pointed out:<br /><br />With intrepid hearts, we believe, teach and confess… <br />•That the doctrine of justification by faith alone in Christ remains the chief article of the Christian faith and the doctrine on which the Church stands or falls (SA:II:I).<br /><br />In Christ,<br />Brett MeyerBrett Meyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15916121605136512091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-37285875363252351892010-06-01T11:21:53.205-07:002010-06-01T11:21:53.205-07:00There are two liturgical problems with using the 1...There are two liturgical problems with using the 1549 BCP as the litmus test of being "liturgical." They are these: Cranmer ahd already begun to innovate in 1549, and he includes a revision of the Roman Canon. And Cranmer had no influence on the sources of the Common Service, the Kirchenordnungen. Of course there are similitaries with the 1549, because they are (with the exceptions stated above) the same Liturgy. That's why they borrowed the language of the BCP. Why waste time translating when it's already done for you. (Rome could have learned a thing or two there 40 years ago!)Brian P Westgatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15383132438753364755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-22070420984927195032010-06-01T05:57:26.732-07:002010-06-01T05:57:26.732-07:00I offer my sincere best wishes to all of you in th...I offer my sincere best wishes to all of you in this project. I will be reading your blog on almost a daily basis.<br /><br /><br />Norman Teigen<br />ELS laymanNorman Teigenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13704523935095549165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-1484855032779795172010-05-31T03:58:37.169-07:002010-05-31T03:58:37.169-07:00Wikipedia also includes a more liberal definition ...Wikipedia also includes a more liberal definition of liturgy: "Typically in Christianity, however, the term 'the liturgy' normally refers to a standardized order of events observed during a religious service, be it a sacramental service or a service of public prayer."<br /><br />However "liturgy" is defined, I wholehearted agree with the liturgical principles espoused in your "Nevertheless, we confess…" and look forward to future discussions.Mr. Daniel Gormannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-51304109385351434352010-05-30T19:00:33.059-07:002010-05-30T19:00:33.059-07:00Mr. Gorman,
We do not define "liturgical&quo...Mr. Gorman,<br /><br />We do not define "liturgical" according to the Wikipedia citation.Intrepid Lutheranshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05867580862562801804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-25715886545266362182010-05-30T16:09:53.718-07:002010-05-30T16:09:53.718-07:00Pastor Rydecki said, "First, let me clarify t...Pastor Rydecki said, "First, let me clarify that the person who called Divine Service I from the Supplement "non-liturgical" did not do so for any of the reasons you mentioned, but merely because it was different from the service he liked best. To him, "liturgical" meant The Common Service, p.15. Period."<br /><br />The article on liturgy in Wikipedia states, "Frequently in Christianity a distinction is made between "liturgical" and "non-liturgical" churches based on the elaboration and/or antiquity of the worship. . ."<br /><br />The Common Service originated in the 1549 Book of Common Prayer. To determine if DS 1 from the Supplement is "liturgical" or "non-liturgical", we must compare it to the 1549 BCP. If unnecessary changes were made to the 1549 BCP divine service, DS 1 from the Supplement is "non-liturgical" using the strict definition of liturgical.Mr. Daniel Gormannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-34400793789947580952010-05-30T14:02:55.754-07:002010-05-30T14:02:55.754-07:00Mr. Gorman (sorry, don't know if that's yo...Mr. Gorman (sorry, don't know if that's your proper title),<br /><br /><em>"Will the liturgical innovations of Christian Worship be the topic of a future thread (e.g., addition of a corporate absolution, changes to Nicene Creed, omission of infant confession from Baptism, non-Lutheran revisions to Private Confession, etc.)?"</em><br /><br />First, let me clarify that the person who called Divine Service I from the Supplement "non-liturgical" did not do so for any of the reasons you mentioned, but merely because it was different from the service he liked best. To him, "liturgical" meant The Common Service, p.15. Period.<br /><br />I think all the topics you mentioned are fair game for future discussion. I appreciate the suggestion. But, lest anyone misunderstand, these are not part of some "hidden agenda" items we have tucked away somewhere, nor are we trying to suggest that the same rites must be used in every place.Rev. Paul A. Rydeckihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01447491206453142100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-74390778595760672142010-05-30T10:16:43.186-07:002010-05-30T10:16:43.186-07:00Pastor Rydecki said, "A WELS layman once accu...Pastor Rydecki said, "A WELS layman once accused me of being non-liturgical and even non-Lutheran for using one of the “liturgies” from Christian Worship: Supplement instead of the Common Service straight out of Christian Worship. I had to disagree."<br /><br />Will the liturgical innovations of Christian Worship be the topic of a future thread (e.g., addition of a corporate absolution, changes to Nicene Creed, omission of infant confession from Baptism, non-Lutheran revisions to Private Confession, etc.)?<br /><br />"Nevertheless, we confess… <br />That traditional ceremonies "ought to be observed which may be observed without sin, and which are profitable unto tranquility and good order in the Church, as particular holy days, festivals, and the like" (AC:XV). <br />That our freedom in matters not directly commanded or forbidden by God is not a license to do whatever one wishes, but rather it is a solemn responsibility from God to make choices that edify the whole Church of God (1 Cor. 14:26, FC:SD:X:9). <br />That any use of our Christian freedom to introduce change into the Church must avoid all frivolity and offense (FC:E:X:5). <br />That any use of our Christian freedom to introduce change into the Church must take our brothers into consideration and must not disrupt our unity as brothers (Eph. 4:3). <br />That the true unity of the Church is injured and the doctrine of the Gospel is perverted by those who abandon the liturgy of the Church catholic in favor of sectarian forms that divide Christians into groups based on age, culture or personal preference (1 Cor. 1:10-13). <br />That the true unity of the Church is injured and the doctrine of the Gospel is perverted by those who ape the enthusiastic, man-centered worship practices of the sects (2 Cor. 6:14, Mat. 7:16)." <br />Intrepid Lutherans: What We BelieveDaniel Gormannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-42263072610382633512010-05-29T18:41:23.385-07:002010-05-29T18:41:23.385-07:00Pastor Spencer:
Thank you for your prompt respons...Pastor Spencer:<br /><br />Thank you for your prompt response to my questions.<br /><br />I look forward to the discussion here of "effectiveness". Having witnessed discussions of that question/issue on certain WELS email lists in the past, I hope that its treatment here will bring much more light than heat.<br /><br />And I am encouraged to hear how you discussed this project with members of the CoP and announced it to so many of the men in our synod charged with looking after our doctrine and practice. Wise, brotherly, and responsible.<br /><br />Thank you. I look forward to reading more here.Pastor Jeff Samelsonhttp://www.christlutheran.netnoreply@blogger.com