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

[ricker]

=DaRev;61512819]Well, we in the LCMS take the Bible for what it says. The ELCA, on the other hand, does not as evidenced by their teaching and practice.

Everything that my pastor said last week was in Jesus's name. We had the Confession of Forgiveness and Apostle's Creed and
Lord's Prayer and Communion for all who belive that Christ is present in the Sacrament and all that good stuff!

Tell me where in that passage is Jesus excusing false doctrine? Where is He advocating tolerance of error? This is the heart of the matter in discussion here. I'm not the one countervailing the meaning. The truth is intolerant of error. Those who teach and act contradictory to our Lord's teaching certainly are not for Him. It's not all that difficult to understand

So you believe that a Christian's honest belief that the body and blood of Jesus is symbolic is enough to make him or her an anathema to Christianity? I believe in the Real Presence, but also believe we are saved by grace through faith given to us by God, not what our thoughts on a certain theological precept might be. I think Mark 9 is a pretty good indication I may be right.

 

[truefiction1]

The only thing we can say for certain is that if there were miraculous healings, they were done by the will of God alone, not by the Virgin Mary nor by any oily type substance emanating from a statue.

And what of the miraculous (because it cannot be explained scientifically) appearance of the oily substance itself? To what or whom would you attribute that?

And to what or whom would you attribute the unmistakable connection between the annointing with the oily substance, along with the asking the Virgin Mary's intercessory prayers, and the miraculous healings?

If you don't mind my asking.

 

[ricker]

Well, we in the LCMS take the Bible for what it says. The ELCA, on the other hand, does not as evidenced by their teaching and practice.

Then take Mark 9 for what it says, instead of obviously twisting it backwards.

The ELCA and the LCMS are on the same side, you know!

 

[DaRev]

Everything that my pastor said last week was in Jesus's name. We had the Confession of Forgiveness and Apostle's Creed and
Lord's Prayer and Communion for all who belive that Christ is present in the Sacrament and all that good stuff!

A little leaven leavens the whole lump. While I'm certain that there are indeed saved Christians who attend ELCA congregations, the church body's own teachings and practices are contrary to the teachings of our Lord. They are misleading many, many people.

So you believe that a Christian's honest belief that the body and blood of Jesus is symbolic is enough to make him or her an anathema to Christianity? I believe in the Real Presence, but also believe we are saved by grace through faith given to us by God, not what our thoughts on a certain theological precept might be. I think Mark 9 is a pretty good indication I may be right.

And herein lies the problem and why this conversation is really moot. You honestly believe that our Lord's clear teaching concerning His body and blood being truly present in the Sacrament, and that those who receive unworthily, dismissing His clear teaching on the matter and committing a sin by taking it in such a manner, are just "thoughts on a certain theological precept"?

You have just proven my whole point. I rest my case.

 

[LilLamb219]

Did you not notice I said "in this case"? I am not debating a grand overview of all Scripture here, just what Mark 9 plainly says.

You did indeed say "in this case" and only wanted Mark 9 to be addressed.

But as we see from filosofer's post, the point that DaRev was making to you (which Luke backs up) was accurate. Even though it went against what YOU were trying to prove, other scripture proved DaRev's point because elsewhere in scripture it is interpreted in exactly the manner he tried to show you yet you didn't want to see that.

 

[ricker]

You did indeed say "in this case" and only wanted Mark 9 to be addressed.

But as we see from filosofer's post, the point that DaRev was making to you (which Luke backs up) was accurate. Even though it went against what YOU were trying to prove, other scripture proved DaRev's point because elsewhere in scripture it is interpreted in exactly the manner he tried to show you yet you didn't want to see that.

Filosofer pulled a single verse out of context. I have no interest in jumping all over trying to put out fires. Everyone on this website uses this method of debate to try to justify themselves. I am not trying to prove anything. The Mark 9 passage speaks for itself for those inclined to listen.

 

[Allan McDougall]

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.

The one thing that convinces me to be and remain Lutheran is we take communion every service. Many churches do not take it at all nor do they baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To me this is truly against the will of God.

 

[ricker]

A little leaven leavens the whole lump. While I'm certain that there are indeed saved Christians who attend ELCA congregations, the church body's own teachings and practices are contrary to the teachings of our Lord. They are misleading many, many people.

And herein lies the problem and why this conversation is really moot. You honestly believe that our Lord's clear teaching concerning His body and blood being truly present in the Sacrament, and that those who receive unworthily, dismissing His clear teaching on the matter and committing a sin by taking it in such a manner, are just "thoughts on a certain theological precept"?

You have just proven my whole point. I rest my case.

Thanks! I guess I know where you stand on the passage in Mark 9.

 

[ricker]

The one thing that convinces me to be and remain Lutheran is we take communion every service. Many churches do not take it at all nor do they baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To me this is truly against the will of God.

I've seen weekly Communion practiced at one non-denominational church I visited. I have no idea how prevalent the practice is, because I usually go to my own Lutheran church. Just sayin'! I'm sure you are best off where you are.

 

[DaRev]

Filosofer pulled a single verse out of context.

So it's not OK when he does it, but it is when you do it?

 

[ricker]

Originally Posted by ricker Filosofer pulled a single verse out of context

So it's not OK when he does it, but it is when you do it?

Let it go, this is what I first posted.

Whoever Is Not Against Us Is for Us

38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.

 

[DaRev]

Let it go, this is what I first posted.

Whoever Is Not Against Us Is for Us

38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.

Yep, and you tried to apply it to something out of context. So, I say again, it's not OK when he does it, but it is when you do it?

 

[ricker]

Yep, and you tried to apply it to something out of context. So, I say again, it's not OK when he does it, but it is when you do it?

I quoted a passage of more than one verse completely in context.

Look, I'm getting out of this "you know what"ing match with you. As I said before, I now know what you think of Mark 9, a big reason for this friendly exchange.

 

[DaRev]

I quoted a passage of more than one verse completely in context.

But you misapplied it to another context.

Look, I'm getting out of this "you know what"ing match with you. As I said before, I now know what you think of Mark 9, a big reason for this friendly exchange.

I'm not sure you even know what it means.

 

[ricker]

But you misapplied it to another context.


I'm not sure you even know what it means.

All I can say is I musta really hit a nerve with post #42, I've rarely seen you so riled up. Peace, brother!

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Did you not notice I said "in this case"? I am not debating a grand overview of all Scripture here, just what Mark 9 plainly says.

Again I ask you...if you are not FOR something...what are you?

Let me put it a little easier for you.

You have two candidates to choose from, none others. You have Tom and you have Jerry. You have to vote for one of them. If you say "I am voting for Tom" the the corollary to that is that you are NOT voting for Jerry.

Correct?

You don't actually have to say "I'm NOT voting for Jerry" for us to know that because you've already said you're voting for Tom.

Jesus probably didn't think he had to spell it out for people after he said "if you're not against me, you're for me".

The big point here, the one that you seem to be missing, is that Jesus is talking about people who are preaching the truth of his message and NOT false doctrine. When a non-denominational church preaches that baptism is symbolic or that communion is just a remembrance where Jesus is not fully present...that's not preaching the truth. That's not being for Jesus in any way.

We are to use the scriptures as our measuring stick...and we are to use it to correct and rebuke as well as teaching. If you're preaching it wrong and we don't say anything, does that make us good stewards of God's word?

Hardly.

All I can say is I musta really hit a nerve with post #42, I've rarely seen you so riled up. Peace, brother!

We usually get riled up when someone seems so dead-set on teaching false doctrine as though it were perfectly okay.

 

[ricker]

Again I ask you...if you are not FOR something...what are you?

Let me put it a little easier for you.

You have two candidates to choose from, none others. You have Tom and you have Jerry. You have to vote for one of them. If you say "I am voting for Tom" the the corollary to that is that you are NOT voting for Jerry.

Correct?

You don't actually have to say "I'm NOT voting for Jerry" for us to know that because you've already said you're voting for Tom.

Jesus probably didn't think he had to spell it out for people after he said "if you're not against me, you're for me".

The big point here, the one that you seem to be missing, is that Jesus is talking about people who are preaching the truth of his message and NOT false doctrine. When a non-denominational church preaches that baptism is symbolic or that communion is just a remembrance where Jesus is not fully present...that's not preaching the truth. That's not being for Jesus in any way.

We are to use the scriptures as our measuring stick...and we are to use it to correct and rebuke as well as teaching. If you're preaching it wrong and we don't say anything, does that make us good stewards of God's word?

Hardly.



We usually get riled up when someone seems so dead-set on teaching false doctrine as though it were perfectly okay.

Didin't know I was teaching.... Look back. All did is quote Mark 9 and asked what it meant to you. (I was responding to a post that covered a lot more than Holy Communion). Aren't Lutherans who are not LCMS allowed to quote the Bible here?

I guess I did respond when people twisted it backwards, or tried to make it say what it didn't.

You are of course free to choose the criteria by which to judge who can participate in your services.

 

[John Constantine]

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.

Or both are wrong. It depends on what the teaching is and what the interpretations are about.

I am very surprised to see Lutherans engage in the same argument that the Catholics use. We are correct and everybody else is wrong.

What I am seeing so far is:

The Catholics point to Apostolic Succession and the chair of Peter.
The Lutherans to the Interpretation of Scripture and the Confessions.

When talking about non-denominational Churches it is impossible to put them all into the same category because their teachings vary so much!

So while in the general sense it seems that they may all be on the same sheet of music, nothing is further from the truth.

What motivates the non-denomination? What is their statement of Faith? What Sacraments do they practice? In what way are those Sacraments practiced?

The warning goes to any Church really, regardless of their denomination. If the Preacher is preaching a different Gospel than that of Jesus Christ, their denomination is not going to save them.

Just like saying I am a Christian does not make me a Christian.

Generalizing does nothing but instigate fights and misconceptions.

Being a Catholic does not make me right any more than being a Lutheran makes me right any more than being a non-denominational makes me right.

The manner in which I practice my Faith in Christ and the obedience that follows is what makes a difference. That still doesn't make me right, as only Christ is right.

I am as careful with a non-denom as I am with a Lutheran as I am with any other denom.

We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves. And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all. See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone. Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.

(1 Thessalonians 5:12-22 ESV)

Peace!

 

[truefiction1]

Or both are wrong. It depends on what the teaching is and what the interpretations are about.

I am very surprised to see Lutherans engage in the same argument that the Catholics use. We are correct and everybody else is wrong.

What I am seeing so far is:

The Catholics point to Apostolic Succession and the chair of Peter.
The Lutherans to the Interpretation of Scripture and the Confessions.

Oops, we forgot one. What we really see is:

The Catholics point to Apostolic Succession and the chair of Peter.

The Lutherans to the Interpretation of Scripture and the Confessions.

... and

The Apostolic Church, founded by Christ Himself, that refused to go along with the office of the Papacy in the first place and which still exists throughout the world, points to Christ as being the only true head of the church, insisting that He remains in Her midst always, by the saving and guiding power of the Holy Spirit.

... Please forgive my intrusion. It's just that I don't think it's a good idea for us to ever omit Orthodox Christianity from important discussions involving comparative Christian Theology.

 

[John Constantine]

Oops, we forgot one. What we really see is:

The Catholics point to Apostolic Succession and the chair of Peter.

The Lutherans to the Interpretation of Scripture and the Confessions.

... and

The Apostolic Church, founded by Christ Himself, that refused to go along with the office of the Papacy in the first place and which still exists throughout the world, points to Christ as being the only true head of the church, insisting that He remains in Her midst always, by the saving and guiding power of the Holy Spirit.

... Please forgive my intrusion. It's just that I don't think it's a good idea for us to ever omit Orthodox Christianity from important discussions involving comparative Christian Theology.

I am even more surprised now! Never in my musings and lurkings on the internets have I seen an Orthodox brother jump in to add wood into the fire

I was using the examples of the Catholic and Lutheran arguments to show a confrontational approach to pointing out differences and not intending to present a comparative Christian Theology approach, for which I am not qualified to do anyways.

The reason I did not include the Orthodox is because I have never seen an Orthodox beating others with the "My Church is better than yours" stick. Not that there are none, just that I have not encountered them.

Thus, the Thessalonians quote was used to present a friendlier but firm approach to argue differences.

If I start a discussion making general assumptions or claiming a unique and higher authority I'm pretty much putting you on the defensive side and not much open to actually listen to what I'm saying, but putting you in a position to prepare counter arguments in the form of: "My dad is bigger than yours".

So, if we are to engage in a reasonable argument about non-denominational Churches we should first establish the "Law of Identity", right?

What type of Non-Denom are we talking about? Since it is not possible to put them all in the same Identity other than not belonging to a mainstream denomination, being that this identity by itself doesn't narrow much in terms of their doctrinal approach.