What is it about non-denominations that Lutherans warn against?

[looking4joy]

I grew up an Apostolic Christian, and even I could see the legalism in that church's atmosphere. I broke away and God led me to a non-denominational church by some friends of mine. It's got a few things I don't agree with, but now I'm being drawn to the Lutheran church.

What would you, as a Lutheran, warn against from the non-denominational churches? Why should I become like minded with the Lutherans? What advantage will I have?

I'm serious about these questions. Some answers here may sway me to switch churches again. Only sincere answers please.

 

[Tangible]

Spirituality of the Cross Revised Edition: Gene Edward Veith: 9780758613035: Amazon.com: Books

Get it. Read it. You'll be glad you did. It's a big part of the reason I became a Lutheran.

[Edit]

You might want to scan through the following thread. There are some very good posts on this subject (and some very bad ones too).

http://www.christianforums.com/t7562870/

 

[Aibrean]

When it comes to specifically non-denominational, the biggest issue is there is no unified theological doctrine. It's just watered down, IMHO.

 

[Tangible]

Non-denoms in general are very pietistic. What specific doctrines you believe are not so important as your morality, your piety, you, you, you and what you do, do do.

As some have said before, it's interesting that there are no non-denom churches who have pure Lutheran theology. Mostly they're just hyper-Baptists, with Baptist theology, and an even higher degree of non-conformity than Baptists have historically had.

 

[nitrox314]

I have been through my row of Catholic, Baptist, Penecostal, Non-denom, and Lutheran church services. I would disagree that non-denoms are baptists and would argue that some non-denoms have a closer-to-Christ lifestyle. Sure you can find a non-denom church thats all about the money or all about good works or all about the 1 hour a week Christianity (Social places) but that is why you have to find one that actually goes by biblical teachings. Do I fully agree with my current non-denom church? No. I agree more with their teachings than the Lutherans or Catholics. My agreement is not met by my needs (As some churches seek to do) but by what I have read and understood in the Holy Bible. Luther wanted to bring the Catholic church back to its roots, but I think some non-denoms have the closest to that idea. My best suggestion is to read the Bible (Especially the Gospels) and find a church that is more Christ-like.

 

[DaRev]

It is my educated opinion that if every church actually taught and followed what the Scriptures actually say, they would all be Confessional Lutheran. I'm not aware of any "non-denom" church that has the correct teaching and practice concerning the Sacraments.

 

[LilLamb219]

It is my educated opinion that if every church actually taught and followed what the Scriptures actually say, they would all be Confessional Lutheran. I'm not aware of any "non-denom" church that has the correct teaching and practice concerning the Sacraments.

I was thinking the same thing too, they deny what Christ said concerning baptism and the Lord's Supper.

 

[Aibrean]

I have been through my row of Catholic, Baptist, Penecostal, Non-denom, and Lutheran church services. I would disagree that non-denoms are baptists and would argue that some non-denoms have a closer-to-Christ lifestyle. Sure you can find a non-denom church thats all about the money or all about good works or all about the 1 hour a week Christianity (Social places) but that is why you have to find one that actually goes by biblical teachings. Do I fully agree with my current non-denom church? No. I agree more with their teachings than the Lutherans or Catholics. My agreement is not met by my needs (As some churches seek to do) but by what I have read and understood in the Holy Bible. Luther wanted to bring the Catholic church back to its roots, but I think some non-denoms have the closest to that idea. My best suggestion is to read the Bible (Especially the Gospels) and find a church that is more Christ-like.

*shudders*

 

[filosofer]

Perhaps the biggest issue with non-denominational churches is the Biblical teaching of sin and its affects. Vague sense of “age of accountibility, etc. Faith becomes more intellectual capacity to make a decision for Jesus. That necessarily also influences how they determine that God works, which makes Baptism and the Lord’s Supper into works of faith, rather than God’s means of creating and sustaining faith.

Just an observation of teaching the Christian faith for 30+ years to many coming out of non-denom churches. I taught at a non-denom college for 3 years. I encountered all of this. Interesting that for some of them they had never encountered what the Bible actually taught on these subjects, only what their pastors/teachers told them.

 

[TheMightyTurtle]

ND churches vary greatly. I'm reading a lot of preconceived misconceptions here. This attitude of we're (Lutherans) right and they're (everyone else) wrong could use a shift towards we believe this, and they believe that.

 

[alexnbethmom]

no preconceived misconceptions here on my end - i was dragged to just about every kind of non-denom known to man growing up.....

 

[LilLamb219]

ND churches vary greatly. I'm reading a lot of preconceived misconceptions here. This attitude of we're (Lutherans) right and they're (everyone else) wrong could use a shift towards we believe this, and they believe that.

If I didn't think Lutherans were correct in their theology, I wouldn't remain one.

 

[alexnbethmom]

If I didn't think Lutherans were correct in their theology, I wouldn't remain one.

exactly....

 

[TheMightyTurtle]

If I didn't think Lutherans were correct in their theology, I wouldn't remain one.

And that's fine. By saying we're right and you're wrong, it shows a lack of respect for another's views, and in turn that person, as well as prevents any kind of intelligent conversation right there.

 

[DaRev]

And that's fine. By saying we're right and you're wrong, it shows a lack of respect for another's views, and in turn that person, as well as prevents any kind of intelligent conversation right there.

But when two teachings contradict each other, one of them HAS to be wrong. We try to educate people to what the Scriptures actually teach. That way, we can all be right.

 

[LilLamb219]

And that's fine. By saying we're right and you're wrong, it shows a lack of respect for another's views, and in turn that person, as well as prevents any kind of intelligent conversation right there.

If I thought I was wrong, I wouldn't believe in it. Of course I think I'm right. I'm not going to express doubt because I don't have doubt. I am not going to entertain anything that I believe to be false.

 

[Shane R]

I think this conversation has exposed the fundamental difference between traditional conservative denominations and the non-denominational movement. The traditional churches assert that doctrine is important, and that doctrine must be right. Non-denoms tend to assert that relationship is what is important, and doctrine is largely divisive.

The problem with the non-denom movement is its lack of intellectual honesty. It starts with the least common denominator theological ecumenism that is typical. The fact is, definitive scriptural dogma - perhaps encapsulated in creedal statements - does matter and does benefit the student. From this shaky foundation of obfuscating doctrine the non-denoms progress to deny their true nature as mini-denominations. The point of the movement is to have liberty apart from the terms set forth in Christ. Each church can do its own thing and is accountable to no one. Its a thoroughly carnal way to do Christianity.

 

[TheMightyTurtle]

If I thought I was wrong, I wouldn't believe in it. Of course I think I'm right. I'm not going to express doubt because I don't have doubt. I am not going to entertain anything that I believe to be false.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, nor am I saying that you have to falsely admit to being wrong. What I am saying is that by telling someone that they are wrong, it shuts that person out as they will automatically go on the defensive. Phrases such as "if you choose to believe that, " and "X million Lutherans believe" are going to have a greater chance for achieving the desired effect rather than "you're wrong and here's why."

Does that make sense? Am I coming across clearly?

 

[DaRev]

I'm not saying that you're wrong, nor am I saying that you have to falsely admit to being wrong. What I am saying is that by telling someone that they are wrong, it shuts that person out as they will automatically go on the defensive. Phrases such as "if you choose to believe that, " and "X million Lutherans believe" are going to have a greater chance for achieving the desired effect rather than "you're wrong and here's why."

Does that make sense? Am I coming across clearly?

It depends a lot on the context.

But there are instances where one must be confronted with the fact that they are in error, lest they continue to believe in the erroneous teaching. It's like when little Johnny answers 2 + 2 = 5 that he's not "wrong", there's just another way to look at it. There's the danger that little Johnny will continue to believe that 2 + 2 = 5 and continue to live in error which will have serious implications later in life.

 

[LilLamb219]

In school, did your teacher ever just flat out tell you that you were wrong...when you were? Do you really need sugar coating?

This is also a Lutheran forum. Of course we're going to say that other denominations are "wrong". If I went to a different denominational forum, I'd read the other people accusing me of being wrong as well. That's how it is.