Non Denoms.... an honest question

[Luther073082]

that's a guy that said that - and yeah, that's pretty much essentially what he's said.

Yeah I just noticed that later and edited. Thanks for the correction though.

i'm getting a headache reading this thread - i am so thankful to God for delivering me from ND churches.....

Seriously we need to pray for all those people in ND churchs who belive those heresies.

You know I knew ND churchs where bad. . . I didn't know they where THAT bad.

Lord, we your children love you because you have first loved us in sending your Son to die for our sins. And in your son's holy name we humbly ask that you open the eyes and hearts of all of those who belive that they can save themselves in any way, including by following the law. Lord you know better then any of us that none of us are worthy of your kingdom, but you daily and richly forgive the sins of all true belivers in Christ so that unworthy as we are we may inherit your kingdom. We pray that those who believe that the kingdom can somehow be obtained by their own efforts, have their eyes opened and love you for the fullness of what you have done for us. Give us the words to help those misguided by these and all other heretical teachings to learn and understand the full truth of the gospel. In Christ's name we pray - Amen

Kyrie Eleison, Christi Eleison

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Yawn. I've posted quite a few scriptures. I read the Bible every day.

The difference is, I assume you read the Bible too, yet we disagree. Why can't you believe ND's read the Bible, yet disagree? Must you make erroneous assumptions in a condescending arrogant manner? Is that your witness of the fruit of your denomination?

This is why doctrine is important, because it is developed out of the greater church community and a deep witness to the breadth of scripture.

Paul is very clear, we are saved by faith apart from works. You quoted Romans to suggest a works righteousness theology?!? Paul is clear that "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" and the righteousness of God comes by faith.
You mistake both the admonition of the Law (which points our sin and drives us to Christ) and the freedom in Christ (which loves to love) as justification. Which proves why doctrine is so important.
Christians will do good, but not for salvation, not for merit, not perfectly, rather they have been made new in Christ--completely a passive act. And as our Lord tells us, good trees will bear good fruit.

Paul also states clearly that he preached nothing other than Christ crucified. If your gospel is one of works, one of Christ as divine teacher, poster Christian, then it is not the gospel Paul preached.

 

[Tangible]

To be fair, I think we should avoid painting with too wide a brush here. While some ND churches do teach what our guest was advocating, ND churches are very heterogeneous - even more so then Baptists. You may have five ND churches in town, and while each may look very similar on the surface, they may have quite different theologies when you dig deeper.

I've known ND Christians who clearly confess salvation by grace, through faith in Christ alone. Often there is a misunderstanding of where that faith originates from, but I think it would be the rare ND Christian who would be as blatantly works-based in their soteriology as our previous guest. They know that salvation is from God, because of the works of Christ, and to his glory. They just don't recognized that making a conscious decision is in fact a work we do.

Probably the major thing that separates Lutherans from ND churches, and the vast majority of Protestant churches for that matter, is the scriptural, historical, and orthodox understanding that Lutherans have of the Sacraments.

It would be a fair generalization to say that they are all pietistic, which accounts for the focus on emotional experiences, individualism, moralism, and the third use of the law.

They range between Southern Baptist-type four point Calvinism to AoG-type Arminianism, and every conceivable combination thereof.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

To be fair, I think we should avoid painting with too wide a brush here. While some ND churches do teach what our guest was advocating, ND churches are very heterogeneous - even more so then Baptists. You may have five ND churches in town, and while each may look very similar on the surface, they may have quite different theologies when you dig deeper.

I've known ND Christians who clearly confess salvation by grace, through faith in Christ alone. Often there is a misunderstanding of where that faith originates from, but I think it would be the rare ND Christian who would be as blatantly works-based in their soteriology as our previous guest. They know that salvation is from God, because of the works of Christ, and to his glory. They just don't recognized that making a conscious decision is in fact a work we do.

Probably the major thing that separates Lutherans from ND churches, and the vast majority of Protestant churches for that matter, is the scriptural, historical, and orthodox understanding that Lutherans have of the Sacraments.

It would be a fair generalization to say that they are all pietistic, which accounts for the focus on emotional experiences, individualism, moralism, and the third use of the law.

They range between Southern Baptist-type four point Calvinism to AoG-type Arminianism, and every conceivable combination thereof.

fair enough, since there is no formal doctrine there is no easy way to describe coherently the theology of them.

I went to a non-denom church once that claimed justification by faith alone and then essentially used sanctification to undo everything Christ did. As you say, 3rd use of the law.

 

[DaRev]

And it has been argued quite successfully that there really is no "3rd use of the Law" since once we try to use the Law to guide our lives, we are once again reminded of our inability to follow it and thus return to Christ for forgiveness, which is in fact 2nd use of the Law.

 

[Bryne]

To be fair, I think we should avoid painting with too wide a brush here. While some ND churches do teach what our guest was advocating, ND churches are very heterogeneous - even more so then Baptists. You may have five ND churches in town, and while each may look very similar on the surface, they may have quite different theologies when you dig deeper.

I've known ND Christians who clearly confess salvation by grace, through faith in Christ alone. Often there is a misunderstanding of where that faith originates from, but I think it would be the rare ND Christian who would be as blatantly works-based in their soteriology as our previous guest. They know that salvation is from God, because of the works of Christ, and to his glory. They just don't recognized that making a conscious decision is in fact a work we do.

Probably the major thing that separates Lutherans from ND churches, and the vast majority of Protestant churches for that matter, is the scriptural, historical, and orthodox understanding that Lutherans have of the Sacraments.

It would be a fair generalization to say that they are all pietistic, which accounts for the focus on emotional experiences, individualism, moralism, and the third use of the law.

They range between Southern Baptist-type four point Calvinism to AoG-type Arminianism, and every conceivable combination thereof.

I totally agree. I have attended both denominational and non-denominational churches throughout my life. I always had a clear understanding that any good that we do comes as a result of our faith in Christ.

Though I have seen varying degrees of works-righteousness present in the churches that I attended. ...nothing to the extent that has been expressed here. Saying that we have it backwards because we put Christ first and behavior second is just...well...unbelievable. Even the most steadfast Arminian I have debated wouldn't suggest that putting Christ first is somehow backwards.

 

[jonathan1971]

I guess this is one of those burdensome doctrines they chose to ignore.

"1. Accordingly, we reject and condemn the following modes of speaking: when it is taught and written that good works are necessary to salvation; also, that no one ever has been saved without good works; also, that it is impossible to be saved without good works. "

 

[LilLamb219]

Luther does not hesitate to say the Holy Spirit works through the way music is used actually.
Luther on Music:

For whether you wish to comfort the sad, to terrify the happy, to encourage the despairing, to humble the proud, to calm the passionate, or to appease those full of hate—and who could number all these masters of the human heart, namely, the emotions, inclinations, and affections that impel men to evil or good?—what more effective means than music could you find? The Holy Ghost himself honors her as an instrument for his proper work when in his Holy Scriptures he asserts that through her his gifts were instilled in the prophets, namely, the inclination to all virtues, as can be seen in Elisha [II Kings 3:15].
Luther, Martin: Pelikan, Jaroslav Jan (Hrsg.) ; Oswald, Hilton C. (Hrsg.) ; Lehmann, Helmut T. (Hrsg.): Luther's Works, Vol. 53 : Liturgy and Hymns. Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1999, c1965 (Luther's Works 53), S. 53:V-323


Now I would agree Luther would not say that without good/stirring music, there is no Holy Spirit (which may be what you are intending to get across or challenging from the nondenom theology). Again then, going back to the post you were commenting on, that is an issue with the theology one places behind their music more than the music itself (and could thus be applied to any form of church music).

The reason the subject of music is so important to me is because I've recently become the new choir director at my church for both the Adult and Youth. When I choose the music to sing, I have extremely high standards and am very disturbed by the amount of weak music that is out there. A former director had purchased some music for the children, but most of it I find to be unusable! The publisher was not a Lutheran publisher and the subject is mostly about ME ME AND MORE ME. I feel that I really want to sit down and just compose my own music instead of trying to sift through all the fluff and garbage that is out there.

Okay, back to whatever else they were all talking about

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

And it has been argued quite successfully that there really is no "3rd use of the Law" since once we try to use the Law to guide our lives, we are once again reminded of our inability to follow it and thus return to Christ for forgiveness, which is in fact 2nd use of the Law.

Not to mention the only difference between the 1st and 3rd use according to the FoC is what causes one to follow (or try to follow) it (fear of wrath or work of the Spirit), but the function/use does not change at all. So really the 3rd use is the same as the 1st use, and both inevitably lead to the 2nd.

 

[LilLamb219]

Not to mention the only difference between the 1st and 3rd use according to the FoC is what causes one to follow (or try to follow) it (fear of wrath or work of the Spirit), but the function/use does not change at all. So really the 3rd use is the same as the 1st use, and both inevitably lead to the 2nd.

And we can't forget that the Law "always" accuses.

 

[jonathan1971]

Rant mode on

One thing I've really appreciated since leaving the reformed world behind was the comfort I now have in what God has given us as a way to experience him. Namely that which is found in baptism and the Lord's supper. Not because of some doctrine of man but becuase it is God himself that works a miracle through these elements. No longer do I have to rely on my fickle heart as a "sign" of my salvation or whether or not I've correctly interpreted scripture.

When you step out of the light that God shines you end up with somthing akin to this.

YouTube - ‪Rick Joyner's Circus‬‏

That is absoletlye disgusting. That is what blaspheming the Holy Spirit looks like. Finding fault with Non-Denominational churches is not equal to blaspheming the Holy Spirit. If you don't like what Lutherans say or believe why don't you take it up with the debate board. Don't accuse us/me of something without letting me defend myself.

But if given the choice as to go back to an ND church and listen to a 2 1/2 hour sermon on why God used a bush to speak to Moses instead of a might oak tree, (incase you were wondering why it was 2 1/2 hours it was because the preacher could break it up into 1/2 segments for his radio broadcast) I guess I'll stick with the doctrines of men, which by the way you haven't proved wrong yet.......and by the way I don't mean the doctrines your husband invents on his own I'm talking about the BoC which can be found here.

Welcome to the Book of Concord

Have a good one

P.S. Dear reader this is in response to this

http://www.christianforums.com/t7564536/

but more specifically this which can be found in post #7

"I have a hard time believing that any group of Christians who know and honor Scripture would gather together to be disrespectful and mocking of the Holy Spirit. "

rant mode off.

 

[DaRev]

"I have a hard time believing that any group of Christians who know and honor Scripture would gather together to be disrespectful and mocking of the Holy Spirit. "

I'd be interested in knowing who here gathered together and mocked the Holy Spirit. I didn't see anyone here do that.

 

[DaRev]

That video looks and sounds like what I've been told a Black Mass is like.

 

[jonathan1971]

I'd be interested in knowing who here gathered together and mocked the Holy Spirit. I didn't see anyone here do that.

I guess bearing false witness against someone is considered a doctrine of man.

 

[thesunisout]

Hello. I am a non denominational Christian who is somewhat new to the faith. I agree with some of the comments here about non-denominational churches. The church that I've been going to seems to be a lot of flash in the pan..they're recruiting people in droves but it doesn't seem like they grounding any of them in the faith..it's more like, here is your bible now go and bear fruit. So, I've been think about changing churches, but I will probably join another non-denominational church. I just haven't been drawn to any particular denomination.

A lot of comments I've seen in this thread accusing non-denominationals of having a wishy-washy type of faith are completely unwarrented. You're certainly not doing yourselves any justice, deriding other members of the body. It's like saying, the Holy Spirit isn't at work in members who aren't of your denomination, or that if He is, He's ineffective in teaching them. You shouldn't place limits on God.

Now I have done an investigation into the various denominations, yours included. I found a few things which I considered red flags. For one, there seems to be an unhealthy fixation on Mary. Perhaps someone here could answer my questions.

"In 1996, Pope John Paul II concluded that the title 'Mother of God' "proclaims the nobility of woman and her very high vocation. God, in effect, treats Mary as a free and responsible person and does not fulfill the Incarnation of his Son until after he has obtained her consent." Lutherans fully agree with this understanding of Mary"

Is this a true interpertation of Lutheran theology? Why would God ever have to obtain permission from anyone?

"The agony that a mother experiences when her children are squabbling and fighting among themselves may be a fair analogy to describe the agony the Blessed Virgin Mary must experience amidst the quarrels dividing the disciples of her Son. In view of this it is not surprising that the bishop of Osnabruck in Germany has suggested that Mary be regarded as the 'patroness' of ecumenism, the rallying point where Christians of all varieties may find unity, common goals and mutual love."

"As Lutheran theologian Harding Meyer recently observed, 'Luther, Malancthon and Zwingli not only did not question teachings about Mary, they explicitly adopted them.' These teachings included the virgin birth, the doctrine of the Theotokos (Mother of God), the semper virgo (ever-virgin) of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and the sanctification of Mary as advocated by St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas and others."

"The job for both Catholics and Protestants in our day, then, becomes one of healing. We need to search diligently for ways of unburdening the Mariological problem that has so splintered our efforts at unity. ... In all these efforts, the Blessed Mother of Our Lord waits with open arms for her children to cease their quarrels and become a family again. She is truly the bridge to Christian unity.
"The starting point for building such unity is the recognition by all that Jesus is our Savior and Lord. Mary, by God's decree, is always a part of that relationship."

There is nothing in scripture about Marys perpetual virginity that I can find, perhaps someone could point that out? In what sense are we all Marys children? Truly I do not understand this fixation on Mary. Scripture does not denote her any special status aside from being "blessed among women". I know the cathoics call her co-redeemer, which I consider a heresay. What is the lutheran stance on Mary, and is it based in scripture?

I would also like to know why Lutherans baptize babies, when they cannot make a decision for Christ. Please provide scripture for your position. Thanks.

I'm not trying to incite a riot or nor do I want anyone thinking that I'm leaving my happy Lutheran home. But I just drove past a non-denom church today that has really been booming in attendance. Then it came to my attention that a LOT of our local non-denoms are really booming.

My question is, what exactly is the allure of a non-denom to some folks? What is their retention like - How long do members last there before either 1) returning to a mainstream religion or 2) leaving organized religion altogether?

It feels like I'm watching stray sheep wander when I see the car in front of me turn in to their parking lot Sunday mornings. I almost want to pull in to "poach and preach!" What on earth are these guys feeding the many itchy ears and poor souls???? I honestly don't get it. There is NO uniformity from church to church, and the attendee is truly at the mercy of a potential loose canon pastor who may or may not know his butt from a hole in the ground. Am I off base here?

In other words, regarding recruitment, is it the appeal of the "non-religion religion" that gets then in the door, or is it entirely something else?

 

[Zecryphon]

Lutherans do not have a fixation upon Mary. We Baptize infants because Jesus said to go to all the nations and Baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (Matt. 28:19-20). Babies are a part of the nations. There is nowhere in Scripture where we are told we can make a choice for Jesus. What you're advocating here is works-righteousness. A heresy we've seen promoted by other ND's in this thread. Read Ephesians 2:1-10. You can do nothing to save yourself. It is all God's work. You do not come to Christ on your own, God drags you to Christ (John 6:44). If you play any part in your salvation, then it is not wholly God's work. I see your ND church has done a bang up job in teaching you falsely. You are right to leave that church. You are wrong to seek out another ND church expecting to find something different.

 

[Logical_Lutheran]

Is this a true interpertation of Lutheran theology? Why would God ever have to obtain permission from anyone?

There is your main problem. In one sentence you gripe about free will then ask why God has to obtain permission. Which one is it...or doesn't your ND church teach you about the consequences of our will that is bound to sin? You have an issue with God asking permission of Mary to give birth (which I've never heard of), and then make a back handed statement about our belief that God needs no permission to bestow his grace upon children? To me this seems a bit hypocritical.

Someone once told me that you have to stand for something or you'll fall for anything. If you just want people to tell you things that will comfort you at the time so you can be in agreement then stick with your ND churches. All you have to do at that point is pick which flavor of heresy you want to follow that week. If you want to know more about the truth of the Gospel then go to a more orthodox church. At least that way you can get a more consistent view of what's been taught for the past 2000 years, rather than listening to whoever's interpretation seems to fit your's at that moment.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

thesunisout,

I'm not sure where those quotes come from, but Lutherans hardly have a fixation on Mary. If anything they often become borderline anti-Mary because of what the Catholic church has made of her. An example, I went to a convention at the Lutheran seminary in St. Louis one year and one of the speakers was a former Lutheran pastor turned Catholic (one of the few married Catholic Priests in the world) who now taught Mariology at a Catholic college. He was coming to talk about something totally different, but the folks there could not get over the fact that he taught Mariology. Almost every question/comment was in reference to Mary and the Catholic obsession with her.

Lutherans see her as a witness to faith, and affirm the virgin birth--something testified to in scripture. Keep in mind Luther challenged the cult of the saints and said we did not find merit in them towards salvation.

As to baptism, Lutherans first take seriously our Lord's command that all should be baptized, and Peter's words in Acts that the promise "is for you and your children". Furthermore, baptism is not an act of the believer affirming his/her faith but an act of God giving the Spirit, forgiving sins, and bringing about new birth within us. For we are to be born of water and Spirit. We are told to be baptized so that we can receive the Holy Spirit. Baptism plain and simple is God's act, not ours. Therefore it is not upon the merit/faith of the person being baptized but rather God that baptism is founded.

Furthermore, faith is not a personal decision. It is a gift of the Spirit. Paul is clear, no one can confess Jesus is Lord without the Holy Spirit. God is the justifier, we are justified by faith, not anything we do. Faith therefore is given by God. It is not about making a choice, it is about God's election, God's choosing us.

Moreover, scripture testifies to the faith of infants. John the baptist is filled with the Spirit and leaps in his mother's womb, Paul reminds Timothy that from infancy he had the knowledge of faith. The Bible tells us the Spirit comes to infants, Baptism is one of the ways in which God gifts the Spirit, therefore it should be extended to infants.

Furthermore, all are sinful and need God. All have sinned and fallen short, the psalmist says that we are sinful from the womb. Do infants need Christ? Yes! Christ died for all, as all needed Christ. Not just the Jews, not just the men, not just the adults. Everyone needs a Savior, everyone needs faith. Therefore babies need Christ, infants need the gift of Baptism. All who believe and are baptized shall be saved as Mark records.

What the Bible does not tell us is that there is reason to exclude infants. It does not say baptism is only for... It says the opposite, that it is for all since Christ was for all. It does not say that there is an age of accountability and before that infants are not accountable, rather it says that ALL and sinned, even from birth. If an infant does not need baptism, that baby does not need Christ. Which goes against the word of God.

Finally, we get to the shift of circumcision to baptism. Cicumcision was a way in which children were put under the old covenant of God. And we can see there that infants were included. As God's new covenant opened to all nations, and all peoples, why would it all of the sudden exclude infants? Just as the old covenant was for all Israel, so the new one is for all nations, and when Christ said all nations he meant all people of all nations.

 

[DaRev]

Now I have done an investigation into the various denominations, yours included. I found a few things which I considered red flags. For one, there seems to be an unhealthy fixation on Mary. Perhaps someone here could answer my questions.

"In 1996, Pope John Paul II concluded that the title 'Mother of God' "proclaims the nobility of woman and her very high vocation. God, in effect, treats Mary as a free and responsible person and does not fulfill the Incarnation of his Son until after he has obtained her consent." Lutherans fully agree with this understanding of Mary"

Is this a true interpertation of Lutheran theology? Why would God ever have to obtain permission from anyone?

"The agony that a mother experiences when her children are squabbling and fighting among themselves may be a fair analogy to describe the agony the Blessed Virgin Mary must experience amidst the quarrels dividing the disciples of her Son. In view of this it is not surprising that the bishop of Osnabruck in Germany has suggested that Mary be regarded as the 'patroness' of ecumenism, the rallying point where Christians of all varieties may find unity, common goals and mutual love."

"As Lutheran theologian Harding Meyer recently observed, 'Luther, Malancthon and Zwingli not only did not question teachings about Mary, they explicitly adopted them.' These teachings included the virgin birth, the doctrine of the Theotokos (Mother of God), the semper virgo (ever-virgin) of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and the sanctification of Mary as advocated by St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas and others."

"The job for both Catholics and Protestants in our day, then, becomes one of healing. We need to search diligently for ways of unburdening the Mariological problem that has so splintered our efforts at unity. ... In all these efforts, the Blessed Mother of Our Lord waits with open arms for her children to cease their quarrels and become a family again. She is truly the bridge to Christian unity.
"The starting point for building such unity is the recognition by all that Jesus is our Savior and Lord. Mary, by God's decree, is always a part of that relationship."

There is nothing in scripture about Marys perpetual virginity that I can find, perhaps someone could point that out? In what sense are we all Marys children? Truly I do not understand this fixation on Mary. Scripture does not denote her any special status aside from being "blessed among women". I know the cathoics call her co-redeemer, which I consider a heresay. What is the lutheran stance on Mary, and is it based in scripture?

I don't know where you got your information, but nothing you have said here reflects Lutheran theology in the least

I would also like to know why Lutherans baptize babies, when they cannot make a decision for Christ. Please provide scripture for your position. Thanks.

We do not "make a decision for Christ". Our natural sinful nature prohibits it. Psalm 51 tells us that we are sinful from conception. Psalm 14 & 53 tell us that there is no one who does good. The Scriptures tell us that no one can say "Jesus is Lord" apart from the Holy Spirit, so our faith precedes anything that we do, and the good that we do is a result of our faith. The Scriptures also teach us that Baptism is a work of God which saves us (1 Peter 3:21). It is one of the means of grace that God works through to bring us to faith. Since infants are conceived and born in a state of sin (Psalm 51:5), and the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), Baptism is necessary as a work of God to cleanse us of our sin, save us (1 Peter 3:21), so that we can enter the Kingdom of God (John 3:3ff). We are not justified by anything we do, but solely and wholly by the work of God (Ephesians 2:8-9).

 

[thesunisout]

I noticed you didn't provide any scripture about Mary or provide the Lutheran position on Mary. You're also being quite antagonistic. I asked honest questions and want honest answers. I would happily join the lutheran church if you could show me in scripture why you do what you do. The reason I am not a catholic or a protestant or a lutheran is because I am extremely suspicious of the emphasis placed on Mary. If you can explain to me why I should care one lick about Mary, when we are supposed to be focused on God, based in scripture, then it would go a long way to dispelling my suspicion. The fact that you answered me this way seems to confirm something is amiss.

As far as your comments about "works-based" righteouness, and how I have been poorly taught, you are entirely misrepresenting my position. I know very well we are saved by Grace.

Mark 16:15,16 John 6:44,45 and Acts 2:36,41 indicate that someone needs to hear the gospel before they're baptized. Mark 16:15,16 Galatians 3:26,27 and Acts 8:12 indicate that we must believe the gospel before we're baptized. Acts 2:38 and Matt. 21:28,29 indicate we must repent of our sins before baptism. Romans 10:9,10 and Acts 8:35-39 indicate that before baptism we must confess Christ.

Baptism is done for the receiving of the forgiveness of sins, yet a baby has comitted no sin. 1 John 3:4; James 1:13-15; Isa. 59:1,2 We only sin we have transgressed Gods law. A baby has no understanding of Gods law.

Please respond with scripture. Thank you.

Lutherans do not have a fixation upon Mary. We Baptize infants because Jesus said to go to all the nations and Baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (Matt. 28:19-20). Babies are a part of the nations. There is nowhere in Scripture where we are told we can make a choice for Jesus. What you're advocating here is works-righteousness. A heresy we've seen promoted by other ND's in this thread. Read Ephesians 2:1-10. You can do nothing to save yourself. It is all God's work. You do not come to Christ on your own, God drags you to Christ (John 6:44). If you play any part in your salvation, then it is not wholly God's work. I see your ND church has done a bang up job in teaching you falsely. You are right to leave that church. You are wrong to seek out another ND church expecting to find something different.