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

[truefiction1]

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.

My intrusion was not meant as an admonishment towards you, and I clearly understood, the first time, the point that you were trying to make here by illustrating the confrontational approach that you understand quite clearly as being a non-productive waste of time which does nothing to enhance anyone's faith in God.

There are most definitely many Orthodox brothers and sisters who practice denominational triumphalism, because of the great temptation that this is, and after all, we are human just like everybody else. But we pretty much understand that this is forbidden, and realize that the saving work of God transcends our limited perceptions. A person can be either for or against Christ, but it is not always for us to decide. This is how we interpret Mark 9:38-42.

Truth is, we could stick as many specific denominations and various types of non-denoms onto your list as we could think of, and it would just further illustrate the point you're making regarding the confrontational approach. Why? because the confrontational approach is within the passions of our failed human psyches. That is, until the Spirit of God burns them out of us after we answer His call to lead an unwavering spiritual life. Perhaps this is what we should focus on, rather than trying to prove ourselves right and someone else wrong.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

It's the same old argument. If I didn't think Lutheranism got it right, I wouldn't be a Lutheran.

Here in the Lutheran forum, you're going to see a lot of "ours is better" because it IS our home forum. And in the non-denom home forum, you'll see that non-denoms think they have it right.

We have the scriptures as our guide and the Word of God...for me personally I don't need more than that.

 

[DaRev]

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.

In other words... the Confessional Lutheran Church.

 

[John Constantine]

It's the same old argument. If I didn't think Lutheranism got it right, I wouldn't be a Lutheran.

Don't know if it is directed towards my post but its not my argument thou. I'm criticizing the approach not the conviction.

Here in the Lutheran forum, you're going to see a lot of "ours is better" because it IS our home forum. And in the non-denom home forum, you'll see that non-denoms think they have it right.

Thanks for the heads up. Seems to be the norm on any forum...

We have the scriptures as our guide and the Word of God...for me personally I don't need more than that.

Agreed.

 

[MDIVGRAD]

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.

First of all, the word "denomination" is a poor word to describe a church confession. Most "denominations" would shudder at such a word because it is just a name thing more than a belief thing. Non-denoms supposedly don't follow a particular confession of faith, but in truth, they follow either a baptist or Calvinist set of beliefs. Most are very fundamentalist claiming that the Bible is all they will consider as their book of faith.

In the Lutheran Faith, we have our Confessions recorded in the Book of Concord. We tell you what we believe, teach and confess according to scripture.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Don't know if it is directed towards my post but its not my argument thou. I'm criticizing the approach not the conviction.

What approach would you have us take then?

Thanks for the heads up. Seems to be the norm on any forum...

Why the sigh?

If someone isn't going to stand behind their beliefs 100% what's the point?

Saying "this doctrine is wrong and not based on scripture" is not as unloving as people like to portray it as. In fact, it's even MORE loving than the whole kumbyah anything goes approach that many churches employ.

Agreed.

 

[John Constantine]

What approach would you have us take then?

I covered this on posts 78 and 80. But in a nutshell - Not assuming and covering all non-denom under the same blanket for the reasons explained in my prior posts. I did not see once, someone attempting to clarify what type of non-denom.

Why the sigh?

If someone isn't going to stand behind their beliefs 100% what's the point?

Well, I have been reading more than I care to admit. And one thing I have seen every denomination claim is that: they are right about their interpretation of Scripture.

Catholics say they are right, Orthodox say they are right, Calvinists say they are right, Baptists say they are right, Pentecostals... anyway, you see where I'm getting at.

Saying "this doctrine is wrong and not based on scripture" is not as unloving as people like to portray it as. In fact, it's even MORE loving than the whole kumbyah anything goes approach that many churches employ.

I agree, but explain why instead of saying: "if every church actually taught and followed what the Scriptures actually say, they would all be Confessional Lutheran."

How does that solve anything? Exactly?

If it is true that Confessional Lutherans are the only ones teaching and following what the Scriptures actually say, then shouldn't it try to present a Scriptural based approach to teaching others?

Saying you are the only one with the correct interpretation just makes you Roman Catholic.

Your words and your actions should speak for themselves, not saying I am right and you are wrong now do as I say. That sounds eerily familiar...

Sidenote - How do you get those really cool looking avatars?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I covered this on posts 78 and 80. But in a nutshell - Not assuming and covering all non-denom under the same blanket for the reasons explained in my prior posts. I did not see once, someone attempting to clarify what type of non-denom.




Well, I have been reading more than I care to admit. And one thing I have seen every denomination claim is that: they are right about their interpretation of Scripture.

Catholics say they are right, Orthodox say they are right, Calvinists say they are right, Baptists say they are right, Pentecostals... anyway, you see where I'm getting at.




I agree, but explain why instead of saying: "if every church actually taught and followed what the Scriptures actually say, they would all be Confessional Lutheran."

How does that solve anything? Exactly?

If it is true that Confessional Lutherans are the only ones teaching and following what the Scriptures actually say, then shouldn't it try to present a Scriptural based approach to teaching others?

Saying you are the only one with the correct interpretation just makes you Roman Catholic.

Your words and your actions should speak for themselves, not saying I am right and you are wrong now do as I say. That sounds eerily familiar...





Sidenote - How do you get those really cool looking avatars?

Hi John,

I would suggest that you get a copy of ESV Luther's Small Catechism with Explanation - 1991 Edition.

This, and earlier editions from Concordia Publishing House not only do a great job explaining what we believe, but provide Scriptural support in Context for what we believe, teach, confess and practice.

While you may not agree with us, this should help you understand how Lutherans have looked to absolute Biblical Authority within our Church.

We are Catholic in our theology, but not "Roman Catholic"; our theology is Orthodox, but not "Eastern Orthodox. We are Biblically Catholic and Orthodox. While we do retain some "traditional" practices and beliefs that may not be explicitly stated in Scripture; these "traditions" that we have retained neither conflict with Scripture, nor are they prohibited by Scripture; they are considered "Adiaphora" which means things of indifference.

Having worked as a Funeral Director for a number of years, I served families in all of the Christian Congregations in our area.

Based on my observations, many (not all) of the ND Congregations were in a constant cycle of growth and decline. In the absence of a "unifying" confession; their stability seemed to be centred on their congregational leaders, their Pastors. If their Pastor was dynamic, and taught what they wanted to hear all seemed good; those who disagreed with the Pastor would move either to one of the other ND Churches, to the Pentecostal Church, or one of the Baptist Churches. For the most part in my City there are small core groups in each of these Congregations that stay put, but for the most part, most of the memberships of these Congregations have been members of at least three or four of these Churches in the last 10 years: There is no unifying confession, and doctrines and practice are in constant flux.

In "Confessional and Creedal" Churches such as ours, the Roman Catholic, traditional Presbyterian and Orthodox, Congregations are much more stable and growth is based on "unity of belief", not "programmes" and numbers.

Don't get me wrong; there is much good that can be found in ND Congregations, but the instability within these congregations speaks of disunity in faith. Good Pastors and bad Pastors can be found in every denomination and Church, but if there is unity in faith and doctrine, the negative influence of a "bad" Pastor has little effect on a Congregation.

For me, the more I learned about other Churches and Denominations; the more steadfastly Lutheran I become.

Regarding Avitars; check out this sub-forum:

Forum Features and Support; if you have additional questions; you can open a thread here: Member Services Center.

I hope this helps.

Blessings and Peace to you!

Mark

 

[Moses Medina]

Hi John,

For me, the more I learned about other Churches and Denominations; the more steadfastly Lutheran I become.

Mark

This! After repenting from ever walking away from my faith after 6 years, I hit the bible hard, and then I also studied the dogmas of denominations and the dogma of my non-denomination church back in Houston, TX, this was so I could choose a church in Colorado (was originally thinking baptist) and compared it to scriptures... I became very alarmed at the discrepancy's. I didn't even know what a Lutheran was then, but through much research, prayer and thought, I finally came to the conclusion that the Lutheran Church is biblicly accurate.

Many will see it here though that I still have much of a biased way of interpreting many things in the Bible as 19 out of 26 years of my life was spent in Assemblies of God, Pentecostal, and Non-denominational churches.

 

[John Constantine]

I hope this helps.

Blessings and Peace to you!

Mark

Hello Mark,

Thanks for taking the time on your reply! Much appreciated

The reason I am here is because the more I read about the Lutherans the more I find peace and conviction.

I don't think I can link yet... but I did post a brief introduction on the TCL welcoming center.

I do have the following to read:

Lutheranism 101
Luther's Small Catechism
Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions-A Readers Edition of the Book of Concord - 2nd edition
The Lutheran Study Bible (CPH)

I will be ordering the "The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition with Notes" shortly as well, lol.

Having been raised in the RC I learned to appreciate the Apocrypha (Sirach is my favorite).

I just realized I might be a Lutheran! LOL

Again, thanks for your reply and yes it helps.

Blessings and Peace to you as well.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

What We Believe is also a great book that describes Lutherans and where our beliefs come from, although admittedly from a WELS slant.

 

[John Constantine]

What We Believe is also a great book that describes Lutherans and where our beliefs come from, although admittedly from a WELS slant.

Thanks!

 

[Moses Medina]

John Constantine, it seems we have been on a faith journey you and I, you from a RC church, me from a Charasmatic church.

 

[John Constantine]

Indeed Dario!

Hopefully you are not as hard headed as I am! lol

Peace and Blessings.

 

[Moses Medina]

I can be. I have read many things and accept it, however, I have such a charasmatic bias to everything I view because it's what I've known for 19 years. Ha ha ha.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Hello Mark,

Thanks for taking the time on your reply! Much appreciated

The reason I am here is because the more I read about the Lutherans the more I find peace and conviction.

I don't think I can link yet... but I did post a brief introduction on the TCL welcoming center.

I do have the following to read:

Lutheranism 101
Luther's Small Catechism
Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions-A Readers Edition of the Book of Concord - 2nd edition
The Lutheran Study Bible (CPH)

I will be ordering the "The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition with Notes" shortly as well, lol.

Having been raised in the RC I learned to appreciate the Apocrypha (Sirach is my favorite).

I just realized I might be a Lutheran! LOL

Again, thanks for your reply and yes it helps.

Blessings and Peace to you as well.

You are most welcome; any time!

This! After repenting from ever walking away from my faith after 6 years, I hit the bible hard, and then I also studied the dogmas of denominations and the dogma of my non-denomination church back in Houston, TX, this was so I could choose a church in Colorado (was originally thinking baptist) and compared it to scriptures... I became very alarmed at the discrepancy's. I didn't even know what a Lutheran was then, but through much research, prayer and thought, I finally came to the conclusion that the Lutheran Church is biblicly accurate.

Many will see it here though that I still have much of a biased way of interpreting many things in the Bible as 19 out of 26 years of my life was spent in Assemblies of God, Pentecostal, and Non-denominational churches.

Dario, I believe that both you and John would also benefit from reading Spirituality of the Cross - Expanded & Revised
by Gene Edward Veith.

In this book Dr. Veith discusses his journey from reformed Protestantism to Lutheranism. This book is an easy read, and in my opinion, it is the best of the best modern summations of Lutheran doctrine, theology and apologetics; written from a layman's point of view.

Here in Canada it's standard reading for those in Sem. All the Pastors I've known endorse it not only for those exploring Lutheranism, but for us "cradle" Lutherans as well!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Indeed Dario!

Hopefully you are not as hard headed as I am! lol

Peace and Blessings.

I can be. I have read many things and accept it, however, I have such a charasmatic bias to everything I view because it's what I've known for 19 years. Ha ha ha.

You guys may have already noticed, but we Lutherans do tend to be somewhat hard-headed as well.

It's been my observation that those who search and ask the hard questions and look at the "hard" answers with minds that are both open and critical are the ones that get the answers they need!

Blessings to you both!

Mark

 

[John Constantine]

You are most welcome; any time!



Dario, I believe that both you and John would also benefit from reading .cph.org/p-2262-spirituality-of-the-cross-expanded-amp-revised.aspx?SearchTerm=Spirituality%20of%20the%20Cross"]Spirituality of the Cross - Expanded & Revised
by Gene Edward Veith.

In this book Dr. Veith discusses his journey from reformed Protestantism to Lutheranism. This book is an easy read, and in my opinion, it is the best of the best modern summations of Lutheran doctrine, theology and apologetics; written from a layman's point of view.

Here in Canada it's standard reading for those in Sem. All the Pastors I've known endorse it not only for those exploring Lutheranism, but for us "cradle" Lutherans as well!

Moar reading

Thanks!

You guys may have already noticed, but we Lutherans do tend to be somewhat hard-headed as well.

It's been my observation that those who search and ask the hard questions and look at the "hard" answers with minds that are both open and critical are the ones that get the answers they need!

Blessings to you both!

Mark

Blessings to you as well Mark!

 

[Moses Medina]

Thanks Marc for the blessings and for the recommended book. God bless you too!