Same old heresy, new name: LCMS OWN

December 11th, 2011 Post by

A friend alerted me to this online today.  It is yet another effort of Satan to afflict the LCMS with more heresy, this time with the heresy of women’s ordination.   On their discussion page they would not tolerate my conversation since the Word of God tells me to mark and avoid such false teachers (and call heretics by their name).  They also claim that they are “growing”, and from my experience of these kinds of groups in the LCMS, the only thing that is growing is their number of years.

Here is their website

Here are the heretics on facebook

I have a few suggestions for these folks:

1.  List your names, if this is what you really believe needs to happen, stand firm in it and publicly declare it.

2.  Leave the LCMS and stop having anything to do with us.  LCMC and NALC are more “moderate” versions of “Lutheranism” out there that accept your heresies.  If you want to take your theology to its fullest expression, just join the ELCA.

 

Further – some things are not worth talking about over and over again.  The scriptures are clear on this point.  This is NOT an opportunity for Koinonia.  How can light have fellowship with darkness?

There are things which honest LCMS folks can have disagreements over (hence the Koinonia Project), this is not one of them.
Here is a great “Advent” moment to preach the law to these folks, lest they be allowed to continue in their impenitence and unbelief, ultimately leading to their eternal destruction.  Here is a great “Advent” moment for them to repent.

 






Rules for comments on this site:


Engage the contents and substance of the post. Rabbit trails and side issues do not help the discussion of the topics.  Our authors work hard to write these articles and it is a disservice to them to distract from the topic at hand.  If you have a topic you think is important to have an article or discussion on, we invite you to submit a request through the "Ask a Pastor" link or submit a guest article.


Provide a valid email address. If you’re unwilling to do this, we are unwilling to let you comment.


Provide at least your first name. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example.  If you have a good reason to use a fake name, please do so but realize that the administrators of the site expect a valid email address and also reserve the right to ask you for your name privately at any time.


If you post as more than one person from the same IP address, we’ll block that address.


Do not engage in ad hominem arguments. We will delete such comments, and will not be obligated to respond to any complaints (public or private ones) about deleting your comments.


Interaction between people leaving comments ought to reflect Christian virtue, interaction that is gracious and respectful, not judging motives.  If error is to be rebuked, evidence of the error ought to be provided.


We reserve the right to identify and deal with trollish behavior as we see fit and without apology.  This may include warnings (public or private ones) or banning.

  1. Johannes
    December 19th, 2011 at 23:21 | #1

    @Pr. John A. Frahm #50

    And a quote from “Herchuch”. If this ain’t heresy, I don’t know what is:

    “Our Mother who is within us
    we celebrate your many names.
    Your wisdom come.
    Your will be done,
    unfolding from the depths within us.
    Each day you give us all that we need.
    You remind us of our limits
    and we let go.
    You support us in our power
    and we act with courage.
    For you are the dwelling place within us
    the empowerment around us
    and the celebration among us
    now and for ever. Amen.”

    Scary stuff, this.

  2. Johannes
    December 19th, 2011 at 23:33 | #2

    In response to post #91 above, if you want examples of the how of women’s ordination and the outcomes, here are a couple of fascinating but intensely sad articles:

    “Swedes Adrift” by Wm. S. Tighe:
    http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-02-036-f

    “A Grief Observed” by Folke Olofsson:
    http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/print.php?id=17-09-032-f

    Warning: it ain’t easy reading!

    Johannes

  3. WTBA
    December 20th, 2011 at 03:06 | #3

    @100
    Plus ‘heresy’ has H-e-r right in it! ;)

  4. Johannes
    December 20th, 2011 at 08:24 | #4

    WTBA :@100Plus ‘heresy’ has H-e-r right in it!

    So, let’s call Arius and Pelagius “himetics.” Works for me. But now that I look at it. on the other hand, “heresy” has “H-E” right in it also. Let’s just leave it alone. Pick your gender–heresy or himesy is truly politically correct–it knows no gender, and is abominably inclusive in its effects.

    Interesting that in this pro-choice culture, where choice has become no less than a demi-god, heresy (“to choose”) is no stranger, but mixes in quite well. What else would you expect–it not only mixes in, but flourishes.

    Bah! Humbug!

    Johannes

  5. December 20th, 2011 at 22:46 | #5

    For those of you not on Facebook, the OWN Facebook page has become a prime example of how not to run a Facebook page.

    The vast majority of the comments are from a number of people arguing for the historical position of the church. Meanwhile, the OWN administrators have clammed up and more or less refuse to to engage in the discussion which they started. Despite having over 300 “likes,” comments from other OWN supporters are virtually non-existant. Overall, the debate has been, in my opinion, outstandingly civil for an online debate over religion, though, yes, there are some snide remarks here and there by both sides.

    I honestly believe that OWN has a lack of understanding of how online social media works and so had no idea what they were getting themselves into when they setup this Facebook page. They have cracked the dam and are at a loss at how to stop the resulting deluge as their arguments, and credibility, are swept away in the flood of reasoned arguments based on historical evidence and Scripture.

  6. December 22nd, 2011 at 14:40 | #6

    Even though this Paper was written to address ‘ Other ” issues, it nerveless is very germane to the subject at hand!

    THESIS 1 – GOD INSTITUTED THE OFFICE OF THE MINISTRY

    This thesis is more important than first meets the eye. We’re not merely giving God credit for creating
    something. No, much more than that is at stake here. The office of the holy ministry is not a creation or
    invention of man. If it were so, man could dictate its nature and function. But such is not the case.
    Since the office is God’s creation, God will tell us how it is to be filled and to function.

    http://www.confessionallutherans.org/papers/goetz.html

    No more discussion?

    _____________________________________________________________________

    Well then; just what do we do with THAT CAT!!!

    BooBoo kitty does DOES approve.

    Synodocat:

    im in favr of ordaynin girlz and catz.
    December 16 at 9:43pm

    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=313644285337198&set=a.195409023827392.50120.195335460501415&type=1

    ___________________________________________________________________

  7. Philip Adam
    December 25th, 2011 at 09:12 | #7

    St. Paul was raised in Jerusalem (Acts 26:4) “at the feet of Gamaliel” (Acts 22:3). Gamaliel had sat at the feet of Rabbi Hillel. When someone was a student of a great teacher, it was said that “they sat the master’s feet and listened to what he said.”

    After the Parable of the Good Samaritan (where the Priest and Levite represent the purity laws of the Establishment), Mary sat at Jesus’ feet and listened to what he said. (Luke 10:39) This clearly implies that Jesus intended for Mary to become a Rabbi, something unheard of in Judaism at the time.

    Shouldn’t Timothy be considered an aberration that is out of context from the overwhelmingly positive way women are treated in the Gospels? Should not Luke take priority over Timothy?

  8. December 26th, 2011 at 06:27 | #8

    #107: “After the Parable of the Good Samaritan (where the Priest and Levite represent the purity laws of the Establishment), Mary sat at Jesus’ feet and listened to what he said. (Luke 10:39) This clearly implies that Jesus intended for Mary to become a Rabbi, something unheard of in Judaism at the time.”

    Shouldn’t clear statements of Scripture be used to determine what may or may not be “clearly implied” elsewhere in Scripture?

    The technique of interpreting Scripture you use here is a perfect example of fitting Scripture to our own predetermined beliefs. I suggest you keep an open mind and look first in Scripture to see what it is that we should believe.

    And please stop implying that Paul was being mean to women. That false teaching is wishful thinking on the part of those trying to explain away clear teaching from God’s
    Word; it is found no where in Scripture.

  9. December 26th, 2011 at 09:34 | #9

    Now as they went on their way, Jesus entered a village. And a woman named Martha welcomed him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to his teaching. But Martha was distracted with much serving. And she went up to him and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me.” But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her.”

    (Luke 10:38-42 ESV)

    Hmmmmmmmm……….. Teaching????

    After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to go.

    (Luke 10:1 ESV)

    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm………..???

    IXOYC

  10. December 26th, 2011 at 10:22 | #10

    I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus,
    who is to judge the living and the dead,
    and by his appearing and his kingdom:

    preach the word; be ready in season and out of season;
    reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.

    For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching,

    but having itching ears

    they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,
    and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

    As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

    (2 Timothy 4:1-5 ESV)

  11. Johannes
    December 26th, 2011 at 10:39 | #11

    @Philip Adam #107
    “After the Parable of the Good Samaritan (where the Priest and Levite represent the purity laws of the Establishment), Mary sat at Jesus’ feet and listened to what he said. (Luke 10:39) This clearly implies that Jesus intended for Mary to become a Rabbi, something unheard of in Judaism at the time.”

    I have for two hours attempted to craft a response, but except for this one sentence, words fail me!

    Johannes

  12. December 26th, 2011 at 11:20 | #12

    The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.”
    (Genesis 6:5-7 ESV)

    This clearly implies that we should not be here!

    IXOYC

  13. December 26th, 2011 at 11:26 | #13

    And the LORD said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people. Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them”
    (Exodus 32:9-10 ESV)

    This clearly implies that we should not be here!

  14. December 26th, 2011 at 11:32 | #14

    “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

    (John 3:16-21 ESV)

    This clearly implies

    Sub cruce veritas

  15. December 26th, 2011 at 13:26 | #15

    No more discussion?
    _____________________________________________________________________
    Well then; just what do we do with THAT CAT!!!

    BooBoo kitty does DOES approve.

    Synodocat:
    im in favr of ordaynin girlz and catz.
    December 16 at 9:43pm

    click here for facebook
    ______________________________________________________________

  16. John Rixe
    December 26th, 2011 at 14:15 | #16

    …and what about ordaining Comfort Dogs as clearly implied in Matthew 15:27

  17. December 26th, 2011 at 14:43 | #17

    This clearly implies

  18. December 26th, 2011 at 15:06 | #18

    kynarion

    Definitions

    Thayer

    1) a little dog
    Part of Speech: noun neuter
    Citing in TDNT: 3:1104, 494

    Strong

    G2952
    Neuter of a presumed derivative of G2965; a puppy: – dog.

    Louw-Nida

    Gloss Section
    house dog 4.35

    This clearly implies a puppy: – dog.

  19. Johannes
    December 26th, 2011 at 15:10 | #19

    I don’t know if Mr. Adam (#107) was writing tongue-in-cheek or not, but what he is doing is a classic demonstratton of eisegesis (sic)–reading meaning into scripture, rather than lifting the meaning out (exegesis). This is the technique used by Rick Warren, for instance, to show that our purpose in life is to make God smile, and reading into the account of Noah the “clear implication” because He chose Noah and his family to survive the flood, Noah must have made Him smile! If one takes THAT implication to its logical conclusion, then we had better make God smile in order for Him to save us!

    Regarding the treatment of women in the Gospels, I would suggest that, despite many women’s desire for women’s ordination, a great way to treat women well is to deny them ordination. Based on what I have observed in the E–A, and the church in Sweden, women’s ordination is dangerous to their spiritual well-being, and that of the entire Church. Don’t go there!

    Johannes

  20. helen
    December 26th, 2011 at 17:53 | #20

    @Mark Huntemann #109
    After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to go.
    (Luke 10:1 ESV)

    All men, insofar as they are discussed, aren’t they?

  21. December 26th, 2011 at 18:31 | #21

    # 109: “Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her.”
    (Luke 10:38-42 ESV)
    Hmmmmmmmm……….. Teaching????”

    All this time, I thought she had chosen to listen, but not I see how clearly this implies she chose to be a pastor. (VBG)

  22. Karen Janssen
    December 26th, 2011 at 21:56 | #22

    Please be very wary of ASSUMING the point you are trying to make. I am seeing a lot of that here. And not all of it is tongue in cheek.

  23. Johannes
    December 26th, 2011 at 23:03 | #23

    Karen Janssen :
    Please be very wary of ASSUMING the point you are trying to make. I am seeing a lot of that here. And not all of it is tongue in cheek.

    I understand your concern. However, Mr. Adam (#107) needs to re-enter this thread and defend his position. Eisegesis is dangerous stuff, and not a tongue-in-cheek matter. The reaction to his post is no less radical than his apparent mishandling of scripture, which, assuming he is serious, is patently offensive. If he is not serious, but speaking tongue-in-cheek, then the exchanges are harmless.

    Johannes

  24. Jason
    December 27th, 2011 at 09:49 | #24

    @Philip Adam #107

    Wow, that is reading WAY too much into Scpriture.

    Socrates taught Plato. Plato taught Aristotle. Aristotle taught… Alexander the Great? And there were manymor esutdnets of three great three. Some become good philospoers in their own right, but I do not think everyone of them became teachers. Aexander imputed his wisdom where he conquered, but he was more the general, and left the actually nuts and bolts of education to others.

    Like today, all of us go to school. Do all of us become educators? maybe in a limited sense, as we raise our children or show new hires the ropes at our respective jobs. But how many of us actually go into the education field. Your logical set up is flawed, nor does it represent reality. These verses do not posit that Mary would/must become a rabbi, nor is there any reord that she became one. Being so incredibly pious and humble (hence God choosing someone of great faith), Mary would probably be the first to say she would never want to be a rabbi, and would defend that only Levites should be the spiritual teachers.

    And then there is trying to pit Scripture against Scripture. Sure I can see Luke taking priority over Timothy, but as clear Scripture helping to understand less clear Scripture, keeping the harmony of the one timeless author: God. Timothy is canon, so it is authoritative. It is our sinful nature that prevents us from understanding perfectly. If Timothy is probelematic, then so is Genesis (woman as helpmete), Exodus and Levticus (ground rules for women’s roles, particularly the Levitical priesthood), 1 Corinthians (head coverings), and on and on. Many rabbit trails to go down.

  25. J
    December 29th, 2011 at 14:27 | #25

    As a convert from Catholicism to LCMS, I became very distressed at this mother of god nonsense. If she was meant to be given this deceptive title, the scriptures would have bestowed it. Luther was great and made many different and necessary reforms, but he was also a beer drinking rebel who had seizures. He was not a prophet. When the Lutheran church follows suite to openly proclaim Mary like the Catholics, we follow their path to hell.

  26. J
    December 29th, 2011 at 14:40 | #26

    Women pastors? I’m sorry but Paul can’t be taken alone as an authority on this subject by taking his words out of context. It is enough for me that there are no women rabbi’s recorded in the gospels. We can require male pastors to be a necessary tradition without invoking God’s alleged commandments. Debra was Judge of all Israel in the old testament, and lead a war to victory with Gods help. Other than Paul, point out one biblical testimony clearly stating that women can’t hold the office. Assumptions from genesis are valid, but it is a curse on women for the rebellion, not some superior role for men. I accepted Lutheran confirmation so I accept the practice despite it’s dubious logic. Lets not fool ourselves into condemning others for allowing women to be ordained. The greatest difficulty is that the women inclined to fight the tradition have ulterior motives. I would prefer to stay the course rather than become the ELCA!

  27. February 10th, 2012 at 11:02 | #27

    .” Feminism wants parity for its mother-god and rejects the exclusive Father-Son definition of the Trinity.Proponents of women’s ordination may be unaware that the fruit of a feministic axiom sees God as mother, a view that the prophets judged to be pagan. Arguments againstwomen’s ordination that are content with the biblical prohibitions may have unwittingly fallen into a kind of legalism,because they do not recognize the theological structure on which the prohibitions are based.”

  28. John
    June 21st, 2012 at 12:53 | #28

    @Paul #40
    I am overweight, I AM FAT. For too long we, as a society, have tried to change words around so as not to “offend” someone. Absolutely silly logic. When we substitute one word for another we are still using the same “picture” for the previous word’s definition.

    For example: Fat, ovese, stout, portly ALL mean exactly the SAME thing. So, yes, it is heretical – anything as an antithesis to God’s Word is heretical.

    Fat is fat, heretical is heretical, and Celibate is UNMARRIED.

Comment pages
1 2 3 16294
If you have problems commenting on this site, or need to change a comment after it has been posted on the site, please contact us. For help with getting your comment formatted, click here.
Subscribe to comments feed  ..  Subscribe to comments feed for this post
Anonymous comments are welcome on this board, but we do require a valid email address so the admins can verify who you are. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example. Email addresses are kept private on this site, and only available to the site admins. Comments posted without a valid email address may not be published. Want an icon to identify your comment? See this page to see how.
*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.