Updated 12:47 pm.EST, Sun November 22, 2009

Church|Thu, Feb. 19 2009 04:04 PM EST

Lutherans Weigh Making Gay Clergy a Local Decision

By Eric Gorski|Associated Press Writer

The nation's largest Lutheran denomination will consider allowing individual congregations to choose whether to allow gays and lesbians in committed relationships to serve as clergy, an attempt to avoid the sort of infighting that has threatened to tear other churches apart.

A task force of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America recommended that course Thursday in a long-awaited report on ministry standards. The panel, however, said the church needs to clarify a number of questions before overhauling its gay clergy policy.

The report, issued at the same time as a broader church social statement on human sexuality, seeks balance on an issue dividing many Protestant churches. Both documents will be considered in August in Minneapolis at the biannual convention of the 4.7-million member denomination.

"At this point, there is no consensus in the church," said the Rev. Peter Strommen of Prior Lake, Minn., chairman of the 15-member task force on sexuality. "The question ends up being, 'How are we going to live together in that absence of consensus?'

"This ought not to be church-dividing, even if there are strong differences."

Church members on both sides of the issue, however, were dissatisfied with the proposal. Conservatives called it a rejection of Scripture and an advocate for gay clergy said some of the elements take "a step backward."

Gays and lesbians can now serve as clergy in the ELCA if they remain celibate, although some congregations have challenged the system and hired pastors in gay relationships. Heterosexual clergy and professional lay workers are to abstain from sex outside marriage.

The proposed change would cover those in "lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships."

The task force recommended a deliberate four-step process toward a new policy โ€” starting with asking the church whether it is committed in principle "to finding ways to allow congregations and synods that choose to do so to recognize, support, and hold publicly accountable" those relationships.

The task force is not urging a liturgical rite for same-sex couples, said the Rev. Stanley Olson, executive director of vocation and education for the Chicago-based denomination.

The desire is to hold gay people accountable to their relationships much like heterosexual couples are bound by marriage, he said. The report doesn't propose ways to accomplish that.

Next, the church would consider whether it wants to find a way to allow gay clergy while agreeing to "respect the bound consciences of all." If the assembly can agree on those things, then it would weigh the recommendation essentially granting a local option on gay clergy in committed relationships.

The proposal is an effort to avoid the sort of splintering that the 77 million-member Anglican Communion has suffered since 2003, when the Episcopal Church โ€” the Anglican body in the U.S. โ€” consecrated the first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. His election intensified a long-running debate over what Anglicans should believe about salvation, sexuality and other issues.

The ELCA report calls for "structured flexibility" giving congregations, regional church bodies called synods and candidacy committees freedom to "act according to their convictions." Continue »

Pages: 12
Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3
  • Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:06 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I doubt openly gay clergy will be allowed in most mainstream Christian churches. Our nations secular government as-of-yet has not guaranteed the right of gays to marry, much less so the Church. This shows that the majority of Americans do not believe homosexuality is a moral lifestyle and few would be willing to accept a gay minister.

    It is the duty of these individuals to try and embody the word of God in their everyday lives, this is impossible to do while living openly in unrepentent sin.

  • Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "DanPat, Thanks for speaking up for the Holy Mother Church. I'm amazed how people try to deny that the original Christian Church was different than the Catholic Church when it can trace it's lineage directly to Christ and the Apostles.

    We have St Ignatius referring the the one, catholic Church as early as a single generation after the martyrdom of Peter and Paul. Other early Church Fathers also spoke of the universality of Christ's Church in the first century after the Crucifixion. It was this same Catholic Church that held the Council of Nicea and later decided on the canon of the Bible as we know it.

    It's sheer denial to pretend that there was some other universal church around in those days when there was only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church from the beginning.

    You're welcome, Cheisa. You are well informed. The best truth today is the "grafitti on the catacomb walls" especially "prayers for the dead" writings, the Real Presence, see also St. Tarcisis for this (martyred for not giving up Jesus whom he as carrying secretly to a friend); also the Romans hunting down the Christians because they believed they were "cannibals" since the Romans misunderstood the Eucharist. The catacombs go all the way back to the Jews in the OT.

  • Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:10 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Oops! That first paragraph should have "assert" in place of "deny."

    My bad!

  • Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:08 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    DanPat, Thanks for speaking up for the Holy Mother Church. I'm amazed how people try to deny that the original Christian Church was different than the Catholic Church when it can trace it's lineage directly to Christ and the Apostles.

    We have St Ignatius referring the the one, catholic Church as early as a single generation after the martyrdom of Peter and Paul. Other early Church Fathers also spoke of the universality of Christ's Church in the first century after the Crucifixion. It was this same Catholic Church that held the Council of Nicea and later decided on the canon of the Bible as we know it.

    It's sheer denial to pretend that there was some other universal church around in those days when there was only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church from the beginninf.

  • Thu May 28, 2009 11:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "First, we need to dispel the notion that there cannot be "many priests" in the New Covenant. First Peter 2:5â

  • Thu May 28, 2009 10:54 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    'Think about it this way. A denominator is below a nominator. Denominations are unique because they have changed beliefs and left the original.

    The Catholic Church is the original and her beginning is Christ and the Apostles. All the letters Paul wrote were to those that made up the Catholic Church; Romans, Ephesians, Corinthians, Galatians, etc. In the original manuscripts of the New Testament these were called the Catholic Epistles of Paul."

    Perfect and a good way of putting it; being the Church established by Christ it was never a denomination since it is the only Church with the 4 Marks of the true church, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. (Nicene Creed)

  • Thu May 28, 2009 10:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "I know many Catholic family members and friends who do not agree with the doctrines of their church . . . for example, a cousin of mine who recently got married, who graduated from Norte Dame and raised in Catholic schools all his life does not believe in the Immaculate Conception. I have heard him personally debate this with other Catholics."

    Simple answer. He is not a Catholic - only one who "says" he is Catholic. The students who cheered Obama at ND are living proof of this.
    The test is simple, Do you believe all that the Catholic Church as founded by Christ teaches or not? If you do, congratulations. If not-move to "Catholics for a Free Choice" the excommunicated group.

  • Thu May 28, 2009 10:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "online, I too have many catholic friends and relatives who disagree and ignore many of the teachings and rules of the catholic church, plus depending on what order of nuns and priests or what diocese you grew up in determines what one believes with regards to several teachings of the catholic church as I met catholics who were raised in different areas of the country who were taught to believe differently than I was."

    This does not matter, Telling a true Catholic is easy--if you believe all "doctrine" that Christ's Church teaches you are true. If not, you are a CINO (Catholic in name only) like the bunch in congress: Pelosi, Leahy, Kennedy)

  • Thu May 28, 2009 10:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "delight, I e-mailed CP about this new deletion process, but if this doesn't change soon I'll be heading out of this site. To have to wait for two hours to see if one's post is accepted and then another hour or so to wait for responses from other posters is ridiculous and frankly."

    Where did you see this? I agree. Might as well write letters to each other.

  • Thu May 28, 2009 10:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "Glad to hear that you are not giving up on the CP, Believer, you are needed here. You're certainly more cool headed than some of your brothers...(smiley face) and of course, always 'stubbornly patient'."

    Good post and I agree whoelheartedly.

  • Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:57 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 2

    delight, thanks for those encouraging words and I look forward to meeting some dear friends in Christ who I only know through CP and my hope is that even some of the non-believing posters will come to know Christ as Savior and Lord and they'll be there in glory with us as well. I truly believe with all my heart God is using us to make a difference through CP.

  • Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:23 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    Glad to hear that you are not giving up on the CP, Believer, you are needed here. You're certainly more cool headed than some of your brothers...(smiley face) and of course, always 'stubbornly patient'. In my research for other worthy Christian News and comment websites, I'll surely let you know if I find one I like as much as CP; it's interesting to see what other types of websites are available; I doubt I'd have researched others if there wasn't a glitch with this one, so I'll continue to look around. In the meanwhile, my hope is that this new system will work out better in the future.

    Forgiven, good to see you around lately, your comments are always very good and upbeat.
    Now I'm going to hit 'submit' to see how long it takes to post on the boards.

  • Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Barring the rapture I do plan on hanging around for a while longer!:)

  • Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:30 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    Hi D, believer, Online and Prophet as well as all,
    I, too, hope we can go back to the former way of posting. I came here and have enjoyed the discussions. I have been challenged, up-lifted and encouraged. I pray we can continue. I would rather not part ways with any of you!

  • Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:12 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I too emailed CP to express my disappointment . . . hopefully, they will consider reversing their policy if enough people express their displeasure . . . believer, I do hope you hang around a bit longer to see if things change . . . if not I took note of your email . . . let me know if you mind at all.

    Peace everyone.

  • Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:05 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    salt, I'm not sure what CPs deleting criteria is anymore, but I've not heard from prophet or Mike22685 and several other loyal posters since this new policy kicked in.

  • Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:22 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    delight, I e-mailed CP about this new deletion process, but if this doesn't change soon I'll be heading out of this site. To have to wait for two hours to see if one's post is accepted and then another hour or so to wait for responses from other posters is ridiculous and frankly I don't have the time to invest in that process. If they'll let you or anyone else let me know of some websites that were more like the former CP site, e-mail me at pikebapt@bellsouth.net, take care and be blessed as you and my other brothers and sisters in Christ continue to serve Him, believer

  • Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:17 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Well, Believer, I see your post did not come through after all, huh? So my answer won't make much sense without your post coming up (at least to anyone still reading). I don't know what's going on but I hope CP will fix it soon. I'll check back here tomorrow afternoon.

  • Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:58 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Believer, I clicked on your name and read your post that is currently being 'moderated' and am answering back to get a jump on a return response. I see you have noticed the deleted posts, too. Perhaps they are just working out the kinks?? I've been perusing the internet for Christian News sites and reading the comments and they are tame compared with what we see on CP (as most posters are Christians and are like-minded). It appears that CP has a higher percentage of non Christian posters which may be the reason some have complained as it does get heated when Christians speak to a Secularized and Pluralized mindset, but eliminating posts from these cannot be the answer.

    I haven't noticed unflagged abuses very often and I don't tend to flag comments even if they are. You've been here a while longer, can you tell me, do you think the current tone of the posters is worse than it once was to justify the changing the system in such a drastic way?

  • Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Well, I'm surprised that one passed muster. Another idea would be to make the comments section separate from the stories instead of running these together. In order to read the comments one would have to be registered. That way the readers could read the article and not the comments. Do you suppose the powers that be are taking notes from us on improvements?

  • Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:09 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 4

    Believer, you've got to admit, these news articles are a bit Christian lite for very wide appeal. I googled Christian news and blogs and there are many to choose from. I do not agree that this is not a form of censorship. While you were posting with Jahovanissi and marg420, I saw her posts were deleted and clicked on her name and there were two comments (persumably being moderated) and neither one showed up on the board. There were no personal attacks and although I disagreed with content they should have passed muster if this is an open forum.

    As you may have noticed, the majority of comments originate from the Homosexual stories that produce a lot of controversy and passion on both sides; IF CP was concerned about passion getting out of hand, why do they run so many stories on homosexual issues? After all, there is much more happening in the world that make would excellent stories that CP could run.

    Have you noticed there are fewer postings these last couple of weeks? If they make it more difficult for folks to voice their opinions due to the abuse of a few select individuals, many will not bother to return to the site...and that can't be good for the advertisers. As a middle ground, they should allow the readers and those who are sensitive to go ahead and flag comments and then CP can 'moderate' those and repost the comments flagged in error. Anything but flat out censorship.

  • Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    delight, I shared the same thing with regards to flagging, but to flag you have to be registered so I wonder if these are simply people who are not willing to sign-up, but I honestly don't think this is about censorship as much as not wanting to offend their readers. And lets face it guys it sometimes gets a little hot and heavy and the fur does fly at times and it gets totally intense which is one of the reasons I truly enjoy posting here, but I will admit, self included, we do blow it sometimes and yet in many cases when we do I see many of us doing the right thing by apologizing for our over the top comments. I wonder if it is readers only who their responding to if there was a way to have posters go to a different site to post and readers only could read the articles without the comments from posters and if so put the flagging back in play?

  • Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:31 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    DelightntheLord,

    (Somehow, this smells of censorship . . .)

    This was my initial thought . . . I pray it isnt so.

  • Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:03 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    believer wrote: "I'd like to give a thumbs-down to this new posting system"

    Yikes! I thought I was the only one frustrated!

    Isn't this the way it usually goes....a few bad comments and everyone suffers.

  • Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:55 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    FYI to those who were curious about the new system; Here's the answer I received from CP and this is the second time I am posting it because evidently my posted suggestion of censoring the select abusers of the system was 'moderated' and deleted.


    "Thank you for participating in the comments on our site. We have put in place this new system to moderate comments due to a large number of complaints from our readers about the type of comments posted to our site and because of select individuals that abused our open comment system. The comments are regularly checked now through out the day and we will continue working on ways to make the process of approving comments faster to eliminate as much delay as possible. If you have any questions please feel free to let me know. Thank you and God Bless."

  • Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    believer, that is so true; depending on where one grew up and which order or church one sat under really does determine to some degree what one believes.

  • Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:11 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    "I'd like to give a thumbs-down to this new posting system, I've already e-mailed CP about my concerns..."

    Believer, I have sent an e-mail as well. Are there so many inappropriate comments made here that administration must censor all the comments? What is their new criteria? I do not have a lot of experience posting on internet sites but I am wondering how many of them check over the content of each post before releasing them to the boards. Somehow, this smells of censorship and I've asked them to let the readers decide what is appropriate or not by using the "flag" button if something is obscene. I haven't received a reply yet, but please let us know if you do.

  • Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:20 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    online, I too have many catholic friends and relatives who disagree and ignore many of the teachings and rules of the catholic church, plus depending on what order of nuns and priests or what diocese you grew up in determines what one believes with regards to several teachings of the catholic church as I met catholics who were raised in different areas of the country who were taught to believe differently than I was in the catholic grade schools they attended. But the same is true with many protestant churches and denominations as well.

  • Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:14 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    salt, speaking of thumbs-up, I'd like to give a thumbs-down to this new posting system, I've already e-mailed CP about my concerns, but my main one is that it greatly interupts the flow of discussion as we have to wait about 10 minutes or more in some cases for both our posts and responses to our posts to be put on-line. Hopefully, if many of you feel the same way they'll go back to the former protocol.

  • Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:13 am Agree: 6   Disagree: 0

    Fullgospel,

    Good morning . . . (Friend, we were simply going through the Scriptures to see what the characteristic beliefs of the Church that Jesus founded is, OK?)

    Lets proceed with our discussion about the characteristics of the Church that Jesus founded.

    (Well now, let's not mix up water baptism with being confirmed/baptized by the Holy Spirit.)

    For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13).

    For by one Spirit which we received; we are all united in one body. Whether Jews or gentiles-whether slaves or freemen-we have all drank of one Spirit. Received by faith, his people are imbibed by one Spirit; inspired and preserved through the life that God gives.

    (Now, wait a minute . . .)

    The Church rests on the truth as it is in Christ; not the truth on the Church. Jesus said in Matthew 28:20 (Teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever, I have commanded you . . .) As I mentioned earlier; whether a church is a (true church) or not is determined by comparing its teachings and practices to that of the New Testament church, as recorded in Scripture. A Church can fall away from the truth just as individuals can . . . see Christs messages to the seven churches in Revelation; some of these churches were rebuked for teaching false doctrine.

    You said, (many churches that contradict each other on the most fundamental positions)

    Which fundamental positions are you referring to? Most orthodox Protestant churches agree on the essentials of the faith . . . salvation in Christ, salvation by faith through grace, the Scriptures being Gods Word, etc. Yes, many do not agree on every single point of doctrine but they do agree on the essentials for salvation. I know many Catholic family members and friends who do not agree with the doctrines of their church . . . for example, a cousin of mine who recently got married, who graduated from Norte Dame and raised in Catholic schools all his life does not believe in the Immaculate Conception. I have heard him personally debate this with other Catholics.

    (Did the Apostles have any authority over the believers, yet less authority than Jesus?)

    The teaching of the apostles was to be committed to (faithful men) who would teach others also (2 Timothy 2:2). Preserving the integrity of the gospel is the Churches highest calling. Again, any individual or church that sets itself over the gospel or in place of the gospel has erred.

  • Thu Feb 26, 2009 8:12 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 7

    Hey Online, good to hear from you. Lemme send this before work...

    I agree that the Scriptures speak of one faith, one Lord and one baptism; however, I think it is an assumption to equate the New Testament Church with Catholicism or any other denomination.

    Friend, we were simply going through the Scriptures to see what the characteristic beliefs of the Church that Jesus founded is, OK?

    I will say that the New Testament does speak of re-baptism (Acts 19:3-5)
    Well now, let's not mix up water baptism with being confirmed/baptized by the Holy Spirit.

    ...any Church (body of believers) that preaches the biblical gospel is a pillar of truth.

    Now, wait a minute, let's focus on what we've covered already: Jesus founded one Church with one set of beliefs, and His Church is the foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15). The trouble we have today in taking your position is that there are many churches that contradict each other on the most fundamental positions that have eternal consequences, such as "can you lose your salvation?"

    In the list of biblical offices . . . there is no mention of priests except for the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 1:29). I have no problem with msn or anyone else recommending certain authors or books to read but again none of these are to be considered as equal to the Scriptures. Anything that contradicts, supersedes, or replaces the gospel or the biblical testimony really is nothing more than the commandments and traditions of men.

    I understand the position you're coming from. Let's take another view of this to see if it sheds some light on it. Jesus is our High Priest, the ultimate in levels of authority. Then, there is the priesthood of all believers at the bottom. Did the Apostles have any authority over the believers, yet less authority than Jesus?

  • Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:48 am Agree: 5   Disagree: 0

    msn,

    The first church, its growth, doctrine, and practices, were recorded for us in the New Testament. Whether a church is the (true church) or not is determined by comparing its teachings and practices to that of the New Testament church, as recorded in Scripture. If most of the core elements of the Roman Catholic Church were not practiced by the New Testament Church (the first church and one true church), how then can the Roman Catholic Church be the first church? A study of the New Testament will clearly reveal that the Roman Catholic Church is not the same church as the church that is described in the New Testament.

    (Where did the Catholic Church come from?)

    Not from the New Testament . . .

  • Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Fullgospel,

    (How do you keep up with all the threads at once?)

    It can be challenging but it keeps me in the book :)

    I agree that the Scriptures speak of one faith, one Lord and one baptism; however, I think it is an assumption to equate the New Testament Church with Catholicism or any other denomination. I think we quickly forget that Christendom is made up of wheat and the tares; sheep and the goats. True believers worship God in Spirit and in Truth and are found across denominational lines. These make up the true Church of God; however, since we are discussing the visible church and its teachings . . . I will say that the New Testament does speak of re-baptism (Acts 19:3-5) when necessary and any Church (body of believers) that preaches the biblical gospel is a pillar of truth.

    In the list of biblical offices . . . there is no mention of priests except for the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 1:29). I have no problem with msn or anyone else recommending certain authors or books to read but again none of these are to be considered as equal to the Scriptures. Anything that contradicts, supersedes, or replaces the gospel or the biblical testimony really is nothing more than the commandments and traditions of men.

  • Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 6

    Online,

    Think about it this way. A denominator is below a nominator. Denominations are unique because they have changed beliefs and left the original.

    The Catholic Church is the original and her beginning is Christ and the Apostles. All the letters Paul wrote were to those that made up the Catholic Church; Romans, Ephesians, Corinthians, Galatians, etc. In the original manuscripts of the New Testament these were called the Catholic Epistles of Paul.

    Paul preached to the Roman Church and Peter eventually lead it. This is the origins of my church and historically we can see this without rupture for 2000 years. We can also see other Catholic Churches in communion with Rome which is where the other letters came from; Byzantines, Melkites, Maronites, Chaldean, Syrian, etc. All these churches represented the letters of Paul. All were Catholic and all were one church with the Bishop of Rome being the head. Each Church became its own "Rite" or tradition but all having the same faith and hierarchy. The term "Roman" Catholic really didn't come into fashion till the 16th century.

    We are the Catholic Church, since we are the continuation of these churches.

  • Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 6

    Online and FGospel,

    I think a blog would be great.

    Also Online, while you deny that the Catholic Church is THE CHURCH. I would ask you a question then, where did the Catholic Church come from?

    We see Paul letters to the ROMANS, and we see his many other letters and epistles to Ephesians, Galatians, Corinthians, etc. These churches were all of one faith. They were also placed under the authority of the Apostles who appointed Priests(presbyters) and Bishops to oversee them. As early as the year 107 ad we see the word "Catholic" being used. Now, at the time this term did not mean general but referred to the Church of the Apostles as opposed to non-Christian churches that held non-Christian views yet called themselves Christians like Arians or like Mormons of today. When people used the word Catholic it meant a specific Church that's original leadership was the Apostles.

    Ignatius was a Bishop of Antioch in the eastern church for many years and was a successor to St. Peter in that city. He wrote about the primacy of the Seat of the Bishop of Rome. St. Clement who was Pope in 80ad circa held primacy over all the other bishops and wrote to far off churches to discipline them.

    My point: all these churches Paul wrote to were Catholic. Some were Byzantine Catholics, some were Roman Catholic, some were Melkite Catholic and some were Maronite Catholic, but they were all CATHOLIC and they were all united under the Bishop of Rome who had jurisdiction for God over all the bishops by right of the "Keys" of the kingdom of Heaven.

  • Wed Feb 25, 2009 2:18 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    FullGospel:
    May I respond to your last statement here: You could take this discussion over to carm.org or maybe even a Catholic site? Another option: I don't know how easy it would be, but how about setting up a free blog or something, and implementing some kind of cut and paste code that sets up a forum such as this? Does anybody here know anything about this?

    Also, regarding your comment on there being 40,000 beliefs in the Church - that is a straw man. The majority of those who actually do make up the Church are in total agreement on the fundamental doctrines of the faith (i.e.: Trinity, Christology, most Soteriology). Like the churches in the time of the Apostles and during the writing of the epistles, there are a variety of intramural issues that are still being debated on, and mostly because some have strayed from the literal, orthodox interpretation of Scriptures.
    Sorry to interject, but I felt strongly about that one issue you mentioned and couldn't resist putting in my 'two cents'. ;)

    In Christ,

    Aaron E

  • Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Assurance of Salvation:
    Mt 7:21 not everyone saying "Lord, Lord" will inherit
    Mt 24:13 Those who perservere to the end will be saved.
    Rom 11:22 Remain in His kindness or you will be cut off
    Phil 2:12 work out your salvation with fear and trembling
    1Cor 9:27 drive body for fear of being disqualified
    1Cor 10:11-12 those thinking THEY ARE SECURE, may fall
    Gal 5;4 separated from Christ, you've fallen from Grace
    2Tim 2:11-13 Must hold out to end to reign with Christ
    Hb 6:4-6 describes sharers in Holy Spirit who then fall away
    Heb 10:26-27 if sin after receiving Truth, judgement remains

    So we were saved, are being saved and hope to be saved.

  • Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    aaron and forsalt and light,

    Past event:
    Rom 8"24 for in hope we were saved
    Eph 2:5,8 by grace you have been saved through faith
    2Tim 1:9 He saved us, called us, according to his grace
    Tit 3:5 he saved us thru bath of rebirth, renewal by Holy Spirit

    Present Process:
    Phil 2:12 work out your salvation with fear and trembling
    1 Pet 1:9 as you attain the goal of your faith, salvation

    Future event:
    Mt 10:22 He who endures to the end WILL be saved
    Mt 24:13 He who perserveres to the end WILL be saved
    Mk 8:35 whoever loses his life for my sake Will save it
    Acts 15:11 we shall be saved through the grace of Jesus
    Rom 5:9-10 since we are justified, we shall be saved
    Rom 13:11 salvation is nearer now than first believed
    1Cor 3:15 he will be saved, but only as through fire
    1Cor 5:5 deliver man to Satan so his spirit may be saved

  • Wed Feb 25, 2009 12:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    Online4Him, how do you keep up with all the threads at once? Whew!

    OK, we were on "what are the Biblical characteristics of the Church that Jesus founded? Here's a few:
    * One set of beliefs/one faith, not 40,000 (Eph. 4:5)
    * One baptism, no need for re-baptism (Eph. 4:5)
    * The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15)
    * One will find Bishops, Presbyters/Priests and Deacons in Jesus' Church (Eph. 4:11; 1 Tim. 3:1, 8; 1 Tim. 5:17)
    * There are those who were raised up by God to be in leadership who have been given the authority to forgive sins (John 20:21) through the ministry of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18-20).

    Honestly, there needs to be a separate blog or something where we can iron out these misunderstandings on both sides. And as msnchris pointed out, the writings of the earliest Christians who learned Christianity from the Apostles themselves are a wealth of valuable insight.

  • Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    (What were the early Christians taught by the Apostles to do concerning their beliefs and worship?)

    Really, which scriptural references can you give for infant baptism, transubstantiation, works earn merit, prayers for the dead, praying to the saints, equating the breaking of bread with mass, the office of a priest, the office of a universal bishop, elevating Mary as co-mediator and penance?

    (Now what church does this sound like to you?????)

    You would not like my answer but I will say that these doctrines that you are proposing cannot be found in the biblical text themselves unless you impose them into these texts.

  • Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Msn,

    You bring up a good point . . . lets allow Scripture to answer your question: In Luke 1:1-3; we hear Luke stating that he had a (perfect understanding of ALL things from the very first) . . . Paul says (we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth). . . we are told that we (know) the truth-1 John 2:21 . . . Titus 1:14 speaks of (turning from the truth) . . . Hebrews 10:26 speaks of (having received the knowledge of the truth) . . . 1 Peter 1:22 speaks of (obedience to the truth) . . . Jude speaks of (contending for the faith) etc.

    Gods Word alone contains HIS truth . . . now, surely general truths can be found in other writings and books but they can never be equal to Gods written revelation. Lets take a closer look at what the early Christians believed: yes, their faith was in Jesus Christ but the CHURCH (visible followers/believers) consisted of more than just the apostles. When Paul traveled to whom did he commit the believers too?

    And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified (Acts 20:32).

    Paul in Acts 17:11 speaks of the those in Thessalonica as being (more NOBLE) for testing all things by the Scriptures . . . not by his position as an apostle! You are reading too much into the biblical text my friend . . . first of all, the NT does not list an office of a priest (unless you are referring to the priesthood of believers-1 Peter 1:29). As far as the canon goes . . . as I have mentioned numerous times; the RCC did not give us the Scriptures as you claim . . . would you like for me to repost that information again?

    Many of the New Testament letters were already in circulation before the 4th century . . . Irenaeus of Lyons lists 23 of the 27 books of the NT in AD 180 and Origen of Alexandria lists all 27 in AD 240 and Eusebius of Caesarea lists 22+5 which he was still considering as canonical in AD 325 and in AD 367 Athanasius of Alexandria list all 27, etc.

  • Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "I was saved, I am being saved, and I will be saved is the correct theological way to present it."

    Chris: I can see sanctification as a process in the Bible, but not salvation. Please tell me, from the Scriptures, how salvation is a process, and how you can loose your salvation.
    And since you were saved outside of the RCC, do you believe that there are alternate ways of salvation besides what is taught by the RCC? If so, where does it say that in the Bible?

  • Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:57 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Online,

    I might jump in here, but is everything we need to know as a Christian only in BIBLE, or are there other sources that are worthy or true and do not contradict scripture???? There is a lot I like about the Purpose driven life and is much that is in there not good and true in some areas?

    I say this because the early church was not a Bible church. It was the Church of Jesus Christ, a person not a book. The early church celebrated Christ, not a book. Early Christians were saved not by what they read, but what they heard by being preached to them from WHO????THE APOSTLES. Now, who did the early christians listen to after the Apostles? They listened to the Apostles successors who were the Bishops and Priests who actually knew the Apostles and had their seal of authority through the laying of hands and so on and so on. The New Testament wasn't compiled until the 4th century. Not all the 27 books were read in every church, but all of those churches worshipped the same way while culturally being diverse. They had the same beliefs, the same hierarchy, they were one church.

    FullGospel can add to this too:

    What were the early Christians taught by the Apostles to do concerning their beliefs and worship: Reference: The scriptures, reference the Didache, Letters of Clement, Irenaus, Ignatius, Polycarp, etc.

    They baptized all infants by the eighth day like circumcission,from Christian families.
    They believed the bread and wine were actually the body and blood of the Lord Jesus during the LITURGY.
    They believed that faith without good works, wasn't faith at all.
    They prayed for the dead, they offered pennance for the dead.
    They prayed to the Apostles and other hierarchy who died in the friendship of Christ. They petitioned these Saints who had passed to pray for them to God.
    They celebrated the "Breaking of the Bread"(Mass) everyday, but Sunday was an obligation.
    They were obediant to their Priest and their local Bishop.
    The Bishop of Rome for the early Christians held Primacy among all the bishops meaning he had the ultimate and final authority in binding and loosing doctrine, issues, faith and morals.
    They honored Mary and Joseph and all the Apostles, by laying flowers at the places they lived, worshipped and died.
    Born again meant being baptized.
    If you sinned seriously after you were baptized, then you gave a public confession, the priest forgave you and you did pennance.

    Now what church does this sound like to you?????

  • Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Grace is a gift that can be either accepted or rejected. Grace is also not a one time thing or a one time event.

    Grace is infused into our lives through many channels including the Sacraments, keeping the 10 commandments, reading your bible, living the beatitudes, doing devotionals, etc. Grace opens your heart up to seeing life through God's eyes and conforms your life to immitate Christ being in full communion with Him.

    If you ever might read "The Lives of the Saints", which I fully endorse, you will see what a truly devout life in Christ looks like. These Saints are not all celibate sisters and Priests and quite a few were married.

  • Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Fullgospel,

    Yes, we both agree that Jesus founded His church and yes his church is universal (meaning Christs church consists of all true believers). I agree; what it believes or teaches is more important than what it calls itself. Yes, staying within the Scriptures will give us insight to what the New Testament church believed and taught.

  • Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    aaron.e,

    I was saved, I am being saved, and I will be saved is the correct theological way to present it.

    Salvation is a process, not a one time event. Salvation can be lost if you reject the Lord by your words and actions, so you must perservere in the faith.

  • Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hey Online, my but there's a lot of other dialogue with this article. OK, so we both agree that Jesus founded a single, visible Church that the gates of hell would not and did not prevail against. That's step one.

    Now, we can call it universal, worldwide or rutabaga, the name of the Church Jesus founded isn't as important as what it believes, yes? Would you like to stay within Scripture and look at some of the beliefs that this Church held to?

  • Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Chris:

    This is confusing: "By Grace I will be saved through faith working in love."

    a) "...will be"? I thought you were saved once already?

    b) So were you saved by faith alone?

  • Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    aaron.e,

    Sounds good . . . well, I have to get back to work. I will see you all in a few.

  • Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    (The Catholic Church is a beacon of hope in these troubled times. If you want to know what is moral or not, ask the Catholic Church for Christ speaks through her as promised in Holy Scripture)

    Sorry, but there is no Scriptural evidence that equates the New Testament Church with Roman Catholicism . . .

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Church
  • Gifts
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Bethany House Publishers

It was a balmy California evening. I had gone for a jog before I was to speak at a leadership conference. I still can't recall how I got there, but I found myself sitting on a curb

Featured Advertiser Links