The AALC on the Holy Spirit
In the past, I've been highly critical of the American Association of Lutheran Churches for its charismatic inclinations, among other doctrinal problems. There have been those who have suggested that the doctrinal deficiencies of the past have been remedied. I have been skeptical, and still am.
But the current statement of the AALC on the Holy Spirit is certainly promising.
Other doctrinal deficiencies- like the practice of permitting its congregations to practice open communion- seem to remain, and it is still very disturbing to say the least that the Missouri Synod and the AALC seem to be on a path to intercommunion while they do. Of course, Missouri Synod District Presidents cannot, as we all know, be counted upon to enforce LCMS policy on this matter, either. But it certainly appears that the AALC has cleaned up its charismatic problem, and for that I can only thank God.
ADDENDUM: Never mind. Just check this piece of unscriptural, un-Lutheran heresy out.
The Missouri Synod would betray everything it ever stood for by declaring pulpit and altar fellowship with a church body willing to tolerate such open and unabashed synergism.
To teach that "the New Testament makes it clear that we have to do something to accept the gift that God offers" is to bluntly reject salvation by grace alone, and make it contingent upon faith and works. No congregation that teaches that has any business calling itself Lutheran- and the Missouri Synod has no business considering intercommunion with a church body which tolerates such a blatant denial of the article by which the Church stands or falls.
But the current statement of the AALC on the Holy Spirit is certainly promising.
Other doctrinal deficiencies- like the practice of permitting its congregations to practice open communion- seem to remain, and it is still very disturbing to say the least that the Missouri Synod and the AALC seem to be on a path to intercommunion while they do. Of course, Missouri Synod District Presidents cannot, as we all know, be counted upon to enforce LCMS policy on this matter, either. But it certainly appears that the AALC has cleaned up its charismatic problem, and for that I can only thank God.
ADDENDUM: Never mind. Just check this piece of unscriptural, un-Lutheran heresy out.
The Missouri Synod would betray everything it ever stood for by declaring pulpit and altar fellowship with a church body willing to tolerate such open and unabashed synergism.
To teach that "the New Testament makes it clear that we have to do something to accept the gift that God offers" is to bluntly reject salvation by grace alone, and make it contingent upon faith and works. No congregation that teaches that has any business calling itself Lutheran- and the Missouri Synod has no business considering intercommunion with a church body which tolerates such a blatant denial of the article by which the Church stands or falls.
Comments
BTW, I have written Pastor Beyer on this and I am awaiting a response.
And if the district chose to support either the resource or those who prepared it, it should be expelled from the LCMS. Both the public doctrine and the policy of Missouri's entire history would demand no less.
Finally, if the AALC is a continuation of the old American Lutheran Church (ALC) as is claimed, would R. C. H. Lenski, the greatest of the old ALC's Biblical theologians, agree with their neo-Pentecostal understanding of "tongues" in the present age? Cut me a break.
You might read the article before reacting to it. I am not a fan of the AALC, and do not endorse its claims- though I might note that neither Acts 2 nor any other passage in Scripture presents what you maintain is the "scriptural" position on cessasionism; in fact, 2 Corinthians 12:28 makes it clear that tongues persisted after Pentecost. God can bestow what gifts He chooses; He has foreclosed his options in neither direction.I differ both from the Enthusiasts and apparently from you in not trying to dictate to Him on the subject. Of course, any gifts He does bestow will be manifest, and not subject to theoretical debate. And further than this, my friend, we have no scriptural warrant to go in either direction.
Nor do I state that the AALC document is orthodox or acceptable, and yes, I certainly insist that the Spirit is to be sought in the Means of Grace, and not elsewhere. The statement affirms that the fullness of the Spirit is given in Baptism; that He is to be sought in the Means of Grace, and not in our own preparations, manipulations, and efforts. Whatever the shortcomings of the statement- and they are considerable- this much, at least, is a good thing. Or do you disagree?