Knowledge/experience

[rlhuckle]

Once again, I have questioned the doctrinal statement of a church and have received a response that in essence may be summarized as:

"Why don't you attend before you pass judgment?"

What is meant by that? Does it mean that the individual churches DO NOT teach (or actually hide) the errors outlined in their doctrinal statements? Does it mean that worship "experience" should trump doctrinal integrity? Does it mean that if one 'experiences' what they 'feel' might be a true fellowship, that THAT feeling trumps the biblical inconsistencies contained the doctrines the 'fellowship' may be founded upon?

While I am positive that all denominational gatherings may contain individuals that are elect; how can one support an organization (tacitly or overtly) that is so bound up in traditional error that promoters MUST tell potential attendees to rely on experience rather than knowledge when evaluating a church biblically (test the spirits)? Does not Christ say that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth?

I guess I like my truth straight up--on the Rock. IF I am wrong in this, I pray that God would open my eyes to it because I have been sorely disappointed by the churchgoers I have discussed these things with.

[wildboar]

What it means is that I worship in churches at times that I disagree with if their focus is on what really matters. I've gone to several LCMS churches and their focus generally seems to be on Christ and his work. I may have disagreements with them but its not like walking into an EO church where the worship is centered around icons.

[Highlyfavored]

What it means is that I worship in churches at times that I disagree with if their focus is on what really matters. I've gone to several LCMS churches and their focus generally seems to be on Christ and his work. I may have disagreements with them but its not like walking into an EO church where the worship is centered around icons.

So then, would this be akin to saying that you are using the force?

[rlhuckle]

What it means is that I worship in churches at times that I disagree with if their focus is on what really matters. I've gone to several LCMS churches and their focus generally seems to be on Christ and his work. I may have disagreements with them but its not like walking into an EO church where the worship is centered around icons.

Then, generally, I wish you well in your worship experiences.

There is a megachurch here that people describe as similar to attending a broadway show and the message is peace and love (regardless of one's sinful lifestyle). A good experience is had by all (generally, that is).


Again, it appears to me that you are teaching that doctrine doesn't really matter, and that a 'general' focus on Christ and His work is 'faithful enough' to pass for being a 'church.' I read Galatians a little differently I guess.

[wildboar]

HF:

No, it means I believe in a Biblical Christianity in which people actually assemble in a real place. Perhaps DG uses the force, I don't know. Theologically the jedi are much closer to the moderators of this board than my own position. The jedi seemed to only meet to discuss various problems and never to worship. The god (if the force can be called such a thing) of the jedi was abstract and impersonal, there were certain rules to be followed but no relationship. (EWWW....I said relationship, I can hear you all puking now.)

[Brandan Kraft]

HF:

No, it means I believe in a Biblical Christianity in which people actually assemble in a real place. Perhaps DG uses the force, I don't know. Theologically the jedi are much closer to the moderators of this board than my own position. The jedi seemed to only meet to discuss various problems and never to worship. The god (if the force can be called such a thing) of the jedi was abstract and impersonal, there were certain rules to be followed but no relationship. (EWWW....I said relationship, I can hear you all puking now.)

Worship can be defined as gathering together to discuss the TRUTH. If that's not worship, I do not know what is...

[Brandan Kraft]

The god (if the force can be called such a thing) of the jedi was abstract and impersonal, there were certain rules to be followed but no relationship. (EWWW....I said relationship, I can hear you all puking now.)

I'm puking at your vile hatred for all of us. You seem to think we oppose relationships. Your constant attack on us makes me very angry.

[Whammer]

HF:

No, it means I believe in a Biblical Christianity in which people actually assemble in a real place. Perhaps DG uses the force, I don't know. Theologically the jedi are much closer to the moderators of this board than my own position. The jedi seemed to only meet to discuss various problems and never to worship. The god (if the force can be called such a thing) of the jedi was abstract and impersonal, there were certain rules to be followed but no relationship. (EWWW....I said relationship, I can hear you all puking now.)

I posted this passage on another thread as well to Joe, and I would like your thoughts on it as well.......since you seem to be hung up on a "real place"..............John 4:1-26.
Is there a certain number of people required for an "assembly" to be valid, and is there "real place" you would say the "elect of Christ" must be in order for genuine worship to take place?

[MCoving]

What it means is that I worship in churches at times that I disagree with if their focus is on what really matters. I've gone to several LCMS churches and their focus generally seems to be on Christ and his work. I may have disagreements with them but its not like walking into an EO church where the worship is centered around icons.

Hmm.. I met a few Lutherans in my day and they dont all say that God is sovereign and believe in predestination. They dont understand the Gospel.. the same as arminians dont, arminians may believe in a middle ground, chosen but free. Here is a piece from that LCMS website I found interesting... I could never attend a church that believe this:
"36. Accordingly we reject as an anti-Scriptural error the doctrine that not alone the grace of God and the merit of Christ are the cause of the election of grace, but that God has, in addition, found or regarded something good in us which prompted or caused Him to elect us, this being variously designated as "good works," "right conduct," "proper self-determination," "refraining from willful resistance," etc.
Man good works right there!! They believe good works has caused one to be elected to grace. That is salvation conditioned upon the sinner. BLAH! The only good one is Christ, and only good in us would be Christ!

Another yuck to their doctrine here:
"37. But as earnestly as we maintain that there is an election of grace, or a predestination to salvation, so decidedly do we teach, on the other hand, that there is no election of wrath, or predestination to damnation. Scripture plainly reveals the truth that the love of God for the world of lost sinners is universal,"

Well I'm not going to go on critique it for yourself.. But I sure wouldn't want to be a part of this deception whether or not they are saved.. 'Cause I honestly dont know for sure.. God does. but I'd take a guess at them not knowing the Gospel and not converted. Here's the link I was reading... http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=576

I think what it really comes down to.. is what essential truths does a church need to have in their doctrinal statement to be considered worthy of worshipping and fellowshipping at?? I understand that minor inconsistencies will happen.. that tradition will always be a part of most churches.. such as tithing, membership, baptism etc. But what about their main Gospel truths? That is what I look for. Is their doctrine focused on God being COMPLETELY Sovereign over ALL things. Is their focus on Christ rather than works? Those are the main issues.. and one will find that in most churches even the reformed and prysberterian they dont completely believe God is sovereign over all, when it comes down to the nitty gritty.. and some are too focused on works, there's a balance.

I know we've gone over this before.. and over this again. But I think it is good what Bob was trying to do in another thread and understand what others believe constitutes a biblical church to worship at.

Also, I think Rlhuckle that it is MORE about knowledge than it is experience. Now I didn't say NO experience for those of you wanting to jump at that, I believe there is a mixture. But faith is mere assent to the Truth, and first and foremost I want to be learing amoungst likeminded bretheren, those that know the Gospel. Trust me I came from an experience type church.. raising your hands, praying, hearing from God.. other interesting stories.. free will, choosing ones path, what is the right choice? what is God's will in this decision, having two wills. There's a mixture of wrong doctrine mixed with the right words that make it soo.. deceptive.

I dont oppose relationships so I don't know what Charles is talking about. I have friends (in the earthly sense) that I share Christ with daily, and we interact. I also have relationships with people on this forum, but not just online.. on the phone and in person, I'd have to say some know me more than my own family!! I also have started getting to know some people at Glencullen Baptist. But for right now my likeminded brothers are here on the forum. Now I would love to find more in my area by all means! Or to have the funds to move to another place.. as Oregon is very liberal and has many postmodernish churches and such. Each church here in Oregon that does believe in reformed theology that I've attended in some form believe still in free will.

So yeah anyways.. sorry that was long! haha I guess its just sunny out and I'm in a talkative mood hehe

Mary

[Dorcas]

What it means is that I worship in churches at times that I disagree with if their focus is on what really matters. I've gone to several LCMS churches and their focus generally seems to be on Christ and his work. I may have disagreements with them but its not like walking into an EO church where the worship is centered around icons.

Since we have been so fond of 1 Cor. 12-esque analogies:

You kind of remind of a man whose limbs are full of gangrene, condemning the man who chooses to cut his sick parts off. He goes about proudly, because at least he is a "complete" body, forgetting that the parts that he has left may very well choke the life from the rest of him. You see, all we really need for life in a body is a heart, mind and soul. And the heart, mind and soul of Christ's body is the Gospel. He has promised to distribute the parts as HE wills, placing them as HE desires. Just as none of us has a perfect physical body (and we would never call a paraplegic less of a human), none of us has the perfect body of fellowship either. I don't think that anyone would say they have everything that they would ideally need or desire in their fellowship in this world. But that doesn't give you the right to look at the man who is walking fine with a peg-leg, and try to convince him to sew on a gangrenous one instead.

[wildboar]

36. Accordingly we reject as an anti-Scriptural error the doctrine that not alone the grace of God and the merit of Christ are the cause of the election of grace, but that God has, in addition, found or regarded something good in us which prompted or caused Him to elect us, this being variously designated as "good works," "right conduct," "proper self-determination," "refraining from willful resistance," etc.
Man good works right there!! They believe good works has caused one to be elected to grace. That is salvation conditioned upon the sinner. BLAH! The only good one is Christ, and only good in us would be Christ!

Did you read the first part of the sentence? We reject as anti-scriptural....

I think what it really comes down to.. is what essential truths does a church need to have in their doctrinal statement to be considered worthy of worshipping and fellowshipping at?? I understand that minor inconsistencies will happen.. that tradition will always be a part of most churches.. such as tithing, membership, baptism etc. But what about their main Gospel truths? That is what I look for. Is their doctrine focused on God being COMPLETELY Sovereign over ALL things. Is their focus on Christ rather than works? Those are the main issues.. and one will find that in most churches even the reformed and prysberterian they dont completely believe God is sovereign over all, when it comes down to the nitty gritty.. and some are too focused on works, there's a balance.

Jesus said to baptize. I'd rather follow Jesus than any moderator on this board. I'd rather have Jesus than anything. It's all about Jesus.

You kind of remind of a man whose limbs are full of gangrene, condemning the man who chooses to cut his sick parts off. He goes about proudly, because at least he is a "complete" body, forgetting that the parts that he has left may very well choke the life from the rest of him. You see, all we really need for life in a body is a heart, mind and soul. And the heart, mind and soul of Christ's body is the Gospel. He has promised to distribute the parts as HE wills, placing them as HE desires. Just as none of us has a perfect physical body (and we would never call a paraplegic less of a human), none of us has the perfect body of fellowship either. I don't think that anyone would say they have everything that they would ideally need or desire in their fellowship in this world. But that doesn't give you the right to look at the man who is walking fine with a peg-leg, and try to convince him to sew on a gangrenous one instead.

Better to be a pinky finger sewn on to a body that has an ingrown toenail than a pinky finger in a jar. The man with gangrene needs treatment, a leg may need to be cut off but you don't take all his limbs off. You don't just hook his brain up to a computer and give him the illusion of fellowship of movement.

[wildboar]

Again, it appears to me that you are teaching that doctrine doesn't really matter, and that a 'general' focus on Christ and His work is 'faithful enough' to pass for being a 'church.' I read Galatians a little differently I guess.Yesterday 09:21 AM

If that's how it appears to you, you're reading me wrong. Please show me from Galatians what you are talking about.

[MCoving]

Did you read the first part of the sentence? We reject as anti-scriptural....

Originally Posted by mcoving
36. Accordingly we reject as an anti-Scriptural error the doctrine that not alone the grace of God and the merit of Christ are the cause of the election of grace, but that God has, in addition, found or regarded something good in us which prompted or caused Him to elect us, this being variously designated as "good works," "right conduct," "proper self-determination," "refraining from willful resistance," etc.
Man good works right there!! They believe good works has caused one to be elected to grace. That is salvation conditioned upon the sinner. BLAH! The only good one is Christ, and only good in us would be Christ!

Yes I did and this is how it read to me.. we reject as an anti-Scriptural error the doctrine that not alone the grace of God and the merit of Christ are the cause of election of grace. That is what they reject as not being Scriptural. Then they say.. but... BUT that God has, in addition, found or regarded something good in us.

I thought it was saying they rejected grace alone... and election of grace that it had something to do with mans works. That paragrah is confusing.. sorry. Either way they may believe that but then don't believe that God elected those to damnation too. Which seems odd to me..

Also this part of their article sounds like the means of grace also MUST include baptism and partaking of the table. What if it doesn't? is one not giving the Gospel then since this is under their means of grace? I dont get this either...

Of the Means of Grace
(St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, N.D.) [Adopted 1932]
21. Although God is present and operates everywhere throughout all creation and the whole earth is therefore full of the temporal bounties and blessings of God, Col. 1:17; Acts 17:28; 14:17, still we hold with Scripture that God offers and communicates to men the spiritual blessings purchased by Christ, namely, the forgiveness of sins and the treasures and gifts connected therewith, only through the external means of grace ordained by Him. These means of grace are the Word of the Gospel, in every form in which it is brought to man, and the Sacraments of Holy Baptism and of the Lord's Supper. The Word of the gospel promises and applies the grace of God, works faith and thus regenerates man, and gives the Holy Ghost, Acts 20:24; Rom. 10:17; 1 Pet. 1:23; Gal. 3:2. Baptism, too, is applied for the remission of sins and is therefore a washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, Acts 2:38; 22:16; Titus 3:5. Likewise the object of the Lord's Supper, that is, of the ministration of the body and blood of Christ, is none other than the communication and sealing of the forgiveness of sins, as the words declare: "Given for you," and: "Shed for you for the remission of sins," Luke 22:19, 20; Matt. 26:28, and "This cup is the New Testament in My blood," 1 Cor. 11:23; Jer. 31:31-34 ("New Covenant").


and says this: "but go into the whole world with the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments"

AND the Sacraments.. so they believe one is saved by the Gospel AND the sacraments. one can just go into the world with the preaching of the Gospel. To be saved one doesn't need the administration of the Sacraments... I dont know if thats what they believe but I think they put too high of importance on sacraments.

I dont know.. anyways I'm sure this is discussed enough. Take care, but thanks for peeking my curiousity though in their doctrine. Have a good day.

Mary

[rlhuckle]

What it means is that I worship in churches at times that I disagree with if their focus is on what really matters. I've gone to several LCMS churches and their focus generally seems to be on Christ and his work. I may have disagreements with them but its not like walking into an EO church where the worship is centered around icons.

If that's how it appears to you, you're reading me wrong. Please show me from Galatians what you are talking about.

I was using your own terminology. The terms that you used: "faithful enough" and "general focus" are ambiguous at best and un-Scriptural at worst.

Galatians 1 speaks of those who promote other gospels -- as I am sure you are aware. It also speaks of pleasing men rather than God.

I realize that you have invested quite a bit of your life in religious institutions. It is always hard to make a stand against life-long traditions and for the simple truth when this has been the case.

You have done your best to erect straw men to attack regarding mine and others' positions on this and other issues--especially in regards to unity and fellowship in the true gospel.

The fact remains that the road IS narrow and few there be that find it. It has been my experience that very few "find" it in the institutions that call themselves churches today. If you think you have found it there, who am I to judge another man's servant? All I can do is measure the doctrines against Scripture as the Holy Spirit leads. I have done this and you are aware of my opinions in this regard.

[Whammer]

[quote=MCoving;51868]
I thought it was saying they rejected grace alone... and election of grace that it had something to do with mans works. That paragrah is confusing.. sorry. Either way they may believe that but then don't believe that God elected those to damnation too. Which seems odd to me..

Stick to your guns Mary and dont let WB's teaching push you toward confusion with this confession. People can quote Eph. 2:8 that man is saved by grace through faith...not of any works a hundred times, sing it in songs, write on large overhead projectors, and then in their sermons or writings say that Christ died to save everyone, now its up to them to repent and believe to make it work. Or they will say in addition to what Christ has done, there are these 1 or 2 commandments, like physical circumcisn or law keeping of some kind that are part of salvation........any way you slice it up, it is man saving himself! Jesus' death no longer is particular and effectual.....it is "universal" (just made men savable) and is dependent on man's actions to make it of use.
This lcms doctrinal statement is "double-talk" like many others from tons of other denominations, that is why it is confusing at times.
WB and LOJ seem to be comfortably seated in the suburbs of Rome.....and maybe by Gods grace they wont move into Rome itself but be led out of even those suburbs to green pastures where Christ's sheep actually feed and are fed.......
I liked Dorcas' analogy of the body with gangrene in it, I would like to add one other........if a man could go to a "all you can eat" restaurant and pick and choose his food in good lighting, he had the $ to buy what he wanted, and could sit comfortably and consume it, would it not be better that a man who had no $ and had to "dumpster dive" to find even 1 good morsel of food, and in the process completely have to soil himself in rotten food, and possibly get sick on eating some of the rotten food???
Let us continue to follow 1 Pet. 1:22-2:3 and seek the spiritual milk from Christ.......not the sour milk of the world's wisdom (which is at times a clever conterfeit)........and another thing, the two dont mix either to form good milk 1 Cor. 1:18-2:16.
Let us continue what we are doing, to find fellowship with Christ and His people when and where ever that IS.....not try to create a fellowship that IS NOT.......and be content with Christ's disposal of all things that come to pass. We will continue to be called "individualistic", "arrogant", "harsh", and many other things......but that is just like our Master, Jesus, who for a time puts up with the slander and accusations of the devil and all who belong to him.........John 15:18-21

[lionovjudah]

Let us continue what we are doing, to find fellowship with Christ and His people when and where ever that IS.....not try to create a fellowship that IS NOT.......and be content with Christ's disposal of all things that come to pass. We will continue to be called "individualistic", "arrogant", "harsh", and many other things......but that is just like our Master, Jesus, who for a time puts up with the slander and accusations of the devil and all who belong to him.........John 15:18-21

Brian, please do not compare yourself with our master. IF you think me and WB disagreeing with you is biblical persecution for righteousness sake you are missing the mark widely. I also noticed to the "road back to Rome" analogy. I guess Scott Hahn is not the only one to use this phrase!!!

Mary misread the article. Leave it at that.

[wildboar]

Yes I did and this is how it read to me.. we reject as an anti-Scriptural error the doctrine that not alone the grace of God and the merit of Christ are the cause of election of grace. That is what they reject as not being Scriptural. Then they say.. but... BUT that God has, in addition, found or regarded something good in us.

I don't know how to say this as kindly as I would like to but I think that at least part of the problems that exist in the realm of Biblical interpretation has to do with our inability to deal with English grammar. As a society our ability to deal with grammar has declined. Being a little older than the other people in my class when I took Greek I had more trouble with the basic memorization of the paradigms but not any real problems with the grammar. Many others in the class struggled with the grammar.

But anyhow back to the sentence.

Accordingly we reject as an anti-Scriptural error the doctrine that not alone the grace of God and the merit of Christ are the cause of the election of grace, but that God has, in addition, found or regarded something good in us which prompted or caused Him to elect us, this being variously designated as "good works," "right conduct," "proper self-determination," "refraining from willful resistance," etc.

Perhaps some brackets would help you understand. I didn't find the sentence confusing so it might be difficult for me to explain it to you since I'm not quite sure what the problem you're having is. But anyhow here's a try:

Accordingly we reject as an anti-Scriptural error [the doctrine that not alone the grace of God and the merit of Christ are the cause of the election of grace, but that God has, in addition, found or regarded something good in us which prompted or caused Him to elect us, this being variously designated as "good works," "right conduct," "proper self-determination," "refraining from willful resistance," etc.]

The anit-Scriptural error is everything contained in the brackets.

[wildboar]

and says this: "but go into the whole world with the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments"

AND the Sacraments.. so they believe one is saved by the Gospel AND the sacraments. one can just go into the world with the preaching of the Gospel.

According to the ending of Matthew disciples are made through baptism. I know that some on this board think that these words of Christ are no longer applicable, but how is this really determined and where does it all end? How do we pick and choose? Give me the command of Christ any day over the teachings of anyone on this board.

The LCMS does not teach that the sacraments are absolutely necessary for salvation. The thief on the cross is a good example of an exception. But they are the ordinary means that God uses. That is why the Scriptures say we are saved through baptism (1 Peter 3:21). Baptism is something God does to us. It is spiritually unhealthy to go years and years without partaking of the Lord's Supper. What if you went years and years without partaking of regular food? I've recently found fasting to be a great spiritual help but haven't really gone any longer than three days without eating any food. Others have gone 40 days. But if you go much longer than that you die. Why did Christ command the partaking of the Lord's Supper? Although there are many other elements in worship the purpose for which the Bible says the disciples came together was to break bread (partake of the Lord's Supper) Acts 20:7.

[wildboar]

Galatians 1 speaks of those who promote other gospels -- as I am sure you are aware. It also speaks of pleasing men rather than God.

I realize that you have invested quite a bit of your life in religious institutions. It is always hard to make a stand against life-long traditions and for the simple truth when this has been the case.

You have done your best to erect straw men to attack regarding mine and others' positions on this and other issues--especially in regards to unity and fellowship in the true gospel.

The fact remains that the road IS narrow and few there be that find it. It has been my experience that very few "find" it in the institutions that call themselves churches today. If you think you have found it there, who am I to judge another man's servant? All I can do is measure the doctrines against Scripture as the Holy Spirit leads. I have done this and you are aware of my opinions in this regard.

Paul is dealing with the issue of those who deny justification by faith alone. If you want to find some of the most zealous defenders of justification by faith alone it would be hard to find any more zealous than those in the LCMS. There's a particular church in the LCMS that I visit from time to time and every single sermon has something to do with justification by faith alone. That is the issue that is being dealt with here. You can't just use Paul's statement as a condemnation of everyone who teaches anything no matter how small different from some thing that you think you see in the Bible somewhere.

As for those who find it, my experience has been that next to NONE find it outside of the church.

Matthew 7:12-14 "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. 13 " Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 "Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Jesus just got done talking about how we should treat one another and says so based on the law and the prophets. Where were the law and the prophets found? Where were they transmitted? Where were they spoken of? In the Church.

[wildboar]

Stick to your guns Mary and dont let WB's teaching push you toward confusion with this confession.

I bring no guns here. If you have a gripe with their denial of sovereign reprobation so be it (although you would have a hard time establishing Biblical support for that being a reason to break fellowship). Do you have no concern for being honest about what they teach at least? Are you not concerned that you might be wrong about them being wrong about something? Shouldn't you rejoice when they proclaim the truth of sovereign election onto salvation? To make all these assumptions about what they do without having any real contact with them is slanderous. Those who engage in slander show allegiance to the devil who is the great slanderer.

I also think its human nature to hate ministers who say things that we really need to hear. Those who really need to hear James preached to them hate James. Those who really need to hear Paul hate Paul. Its always easier for a minister to zero in on some acceptable scapegoat and spend alot of time talking about this horrible heresy that nobody in his congregation would have heard of if he hadn't started preaching about it. A good way for him to lose is job is to tell the people what they need to hear.

I also don't recall Jesus or Paul ever being accused of being individualistic.