The Augustana Ministerium, not to be confused with the Augustana Ministerium:
“The Challenge of Eastern Orthodoxy”
and
“Sanctification and Modes of Communication”
Augustana Ministerium Second Annual Theological Conference
August 30-31, 2007
“Eastern Orthodoxy and Lutheranism on Original Sin,” by Rev. John Rutowicz, Part 1 Part 2
“Eastern Orthodoxy and Lutheranism on Justification,” by Rev. David Juhl, Part 1 Part 2
“Eastern Orthodoxy and Lutheranism on Sanctification/Theosis,” by Rev. Gary Gehlbach, Part 1 Part 2
“Sanctification: What Is It? What Causes It? What Are its Consequences?” by Rev. Dr. Steven Hein
“Modes of Communication in the Ministry of the Gospel,” by Rev. Robert Schaibley
GJ - An Eastern Orthodoxy advocate is not amused.
***
GJ - This reminds me of the Panel Discussion on the Church Growth Movement, Mequon Sasusage Factory, 1987, led by such Fuller luminaries as Paul Kelm, Lawrence Otto Olson, David Valleskey, etc. etc. Paul Y. Cho received fulsome praise and adoration. Criticism of Church Growth was received with smirks.
Note below from Cyberstones:
Re: Infant Communion - weedon
I don't think many of us are actually advocating for the immediate move to infant communion - we know and love our parishes and our people, and we know what such advocacy would do to our churches. But we are advocating for the freedom to discuss this and explore the matter - a matter which many of us think the Reformation fathers did not put on the front burner, and therefore did not do justice to. One cannot but be struck in the discussion between Andreae and Jeremias II how Andreae builds his entire case on a reading of 1 Cor. that Luther disallows; or how Andreae can say that we do not NEED to commune the baptized infants because they spiritually eat of Christ by faith, never even taking note that it was exactly this "spiritually eating of Christ by faith" which according to the Formula is the very grounds for a beneficial oral eating. These are matters which the CTCR in its report simply did not deal with, and they need to be looked at. Not in the heat of someone pressing the Church to change on this over night, but in the calm and reasoned and prayerful discussion of the Scriptures by which the Holy Spirit leads the Church to an ever deeper appropriation of the faith once delivered to the saints.
Mar 30, 2007 13:32:44 Re: Infant Communion - Gary Gehlbach
Fr. Weedon, thank you for your well-reasoned comments. You said it much better than I could.
GVG
Mar 30, 2007 17:53:42 Re: Infant Communion - weedon
Fr. Gehlbach,
What I presented was nothing but a condensation of the arguments you have assembled and helpfully presented for all to read. For that the Church owes you a debt of gratitude indeed.
Mar 30, 2007 07:24:48 Re: Infant Communion - Gary Gehlbach
Bill, your analysis is spot on. In the CTCR response to Circuits 18 & 19, it asserts that advocates of infant communion are making the two sacrament equivocal to each other. Yet, that is exactly what it does in its own response. The CTCR dismisses 2000 years of Church history as being irrelevant, yet asserts the importance of the past 150 years of the LCMS. It plays word games by asserting that a person can be "worthy" yet receive the sacrament "unworthily."
For more information on infant communion and links to several LCMS documents, I would refer folks to my website. It has references and links to all sorts of papers on infant communion.
GVG
Mar 30, 2007 08:18:21 Re: Infant Communion - Rev.PTM
Gary, I know that you personally are really "into" the whole infant communion thing. If so, I urge you to take your views very public and post them on your blog site along with all supporting documentation for your position and then's let's have an open debate over it. Subject your position to that scrutiny.
You are going to have a tough row to hoe though trying to reinterpret the Confessions and Scriptures and appealing to a couple of pastor's papers isn't going to cut the old mustard.
Mar 30, 2007 10:11:34 Re: Infant Communion - Gary Gehlbach
I should take it public? Apparently, my website isn't public, although it has been one of the top search results under Google and only recently overtaken by wikipedia and paedocommunion.com. I lost my top listing when we changed ISPs last year.
Several pastors' papers may not "cut the mustard" in your opinion. But the opponents' arguments are weak and don't cut the muster with Scripture and the Confessions.
The topic of infant communion is an open question. Luther and the Reformers never condemned the Eastern Churches on this topic. (Oh, right that is an argument from silence; but it is still a valid point.) Oh, yes, I'm "into" discussing infant communion. Unlike others who simply wish to pontificate their opinions and bully others into submission.
Paul, believe it or not, I want to discuss the issue (my website lists articles both pro and con) and have been discussing it for years. And besides, the real issue behind the infant communion discussion is whether or not infants have faith or if they must have adult faith to be worthy. All the arguments against infant communion (even the CTCR's) indicate that there are two types of faith -- adult faith and infant faith. I find this most offensive and contrary to the Scripture and the Confessions.
You ask in another place whether I commune infants. No, it is not in the western tradition I inherited. But as with all traditions, it must continually tested by Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.
GJ - Click here for Pastor Gehlbach's Infant Communion Mega-site.
***
GJ - The recently resussitated Augustana Ministerium seems to be the farm team for ELDONA. Both are intent on imitating the Eastern Orthodox as much as possible. One Ft. Wayne student dismissed concerns about crypto-Romanism as "just a matter of polity." Likewise, Church Growth is not doctrine but "just a few useful ideas," in the words of Church Growth Enthusiast David Valleskey.
In fact, both trends are Enthusiasm, one hiding in a cloud of incense, the other behind the latest marketing surveys.
