Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
RevT

Any Lutherans here?

Recommended Posts

...besides me? And I'm new! :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome RevT!!!

 

I am only aware of one other Lutheran (Missouri Synod) but he hasn't been around for months. @stevenoza

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that....all good to know brother!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi RevT,

 

I definitely hope we attract more Lutherans. This particular site is less than a year old. Reformed are always welcome!!!

 

I'd love to learn more about the Lutheran denomination.

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey William....sounds good to me too. I love learning about the Reformed Churches too!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi RevT - and welcome! I was raised in the Lutheran Church, was confirmed as a teenager. I don't know much about the Lutheran theology, but my husband and I get a real kick out of the Lutheran Satire videos.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL...yes Patrick!

 

I love them too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi RevT--I was baptized Lutheran way back in 1968, before there was the split within the Lutheran Church. I also married a Catholic shortly after my baptism, which further drew me away from the Lutheran Church, unfortunately. However, when I finally decided to go back to attending Lutheran services, and chose the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church near us here, it caused quite a bit of confusion for me as well as for the Church's staff. Since I had been baptized before the split, they couldn't decide if I should be allowed to partake of communion unless I had been reconfirmed. In order to do that I needed to agree to all of the Synods doctrines. However, I'd been a born again believer for so long, in spite of being married to a Catholic, that once I began reading all that I needed to agree with, I balked.

 

It was due to their not believing in a few things I'd come to believe in as a born again believer, one of which is the removal of the Bride of Christ by the Lord prior to the tribulation period, which was also something they didn't seem to believe in either. Due to the grief I was suffering back then over the loss of our son in the war in Afghanistan, once I encountered those problems I just told them I couldn't agree to agree with all that they believed and taught, and they were very nice about it all, and told me if I wanted to ever look into it all again that I'd be more than welcome to return. I almost did that at one point, but I just couldn't bring myself to involve myself one more time in anything that might cause me any more stress, conflict, or confusion at this point in my life. However, I love the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod that is--and, long to be able to return to attending at least Sunday Church services. I now think that, deep down, I am actually looking for the strength to do just that. Is there any way you could help clarify some things about the doctrine for me? I'd be so grateful if you could!

God bless!

Christine

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
t was due to their not believing in a few things I'd come to believe in as a born again believer, one of which is the removal of the Bride of Christ by the Lord prior to the tribulation period, which was also something they didn't seem to believe in either.

 

Mark 13: 18 Pray that it may not happen in winter. 19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be. 20 And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days.

 

The passage where "the Tribulation" comes from tells us with no uncertainty that the Elect, that is Christians, would be here throughout the Tribulation. There's not a verse or passage in all the Bible that even remotely hints at a Pretrib Rapture.

 

Matthew 24:37 For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, 39 and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left.

 

When Jesus speaks of what Pretribbers claim is the Rapture, Jesus is very clearly speaking about people being taken away by destruction for judgement, not raptured to be with Him. And, this taking away takes place during the tribulation, by means of the tribulation. It does not take place before the tribulation.

 

1 Thess 4 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.

 

The passage where the "the Rapture" comes from says absolutely nothing about tribulation, let alone the timing of the rapture relative to the tribulation. The context of this "rapture" passage has nothing to do with avoiding tribulation and everything to do with us all being with the Lord and seeing our deceased loved ones again: 13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope.

 

The Pretrib Rapture is an unbiblical doctrine that has invented in the 1800s and only became common in churches in the 20th century. It is a horrible doctrine that has done great harm to the church. And, you relating that it has caused you separation from a fine denomination is just another example of harm that doctrine has done.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, I love the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod that is--and, long to be able to return to attending at least Sunday Church services.

There's no reason you can't attend the services even if you aren't a member. I attended a Missouri Synod church for several months. I even considered joining the church but in the end I didn't because they believe in baptizing infants and I believe that only adults who have put their faith in Christ should be baptized.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's no reason you can't attend the services even if you aren't a member. I attended a Missouri Synod church for several months. I even considered joining the church but in the end I didn't because they believe in baptizing infants and I believe that only adults who have put their faith in Christ should be baptized.

 

The Pretrib Rapture is anti-biblical and toxic to the church. I can't make the same charge against adult-only baptism, but I can charge advocates of adult-only baptism of causing unnecessary division in the church. The Bible doesn't teach adult-only baptism. And, baptism being the sign of a covenant relationship as was circumcision, infant baptism is implied. Infant baptism is implied again by the Bible telling us that whole households were baptized. And in Acts 2:38-39 baptism arguably is instructed for children. Also, infant baptism has been practiced as far back as the first century, and has been practically universal tradition of the church until the Post-Protestant Re-Reformation (the rise of Pentecostalism, Non-denominationalists, Mormonism, and the other usual suspects of generally bad doctrine).

 

If you don't believe in infant baptism for your children, a Lutheran church would be accommodating and baptize your offspring when they're older. But, the adult-only baptism churches won't respect the conscience of the people who would like their children baptized.

 

I would love to see anyone against infant baptism explain lucidly to me why in the Old Testament infants were circumcised. That'll never happen.

 

The reason the Lutheran Church practices infant baptism and doesn't teach the Pretrib Rapture is because this denomination was born and matured before the 1800s, back before the Post-Protestant Re-Reformation.

 

(It's now popular for people who know little about the English Bible, and who can't speak two words of a biblical language, to deem themselves experts on biblical doctrine. And, TV has given a platform for conmen to get rich teaching what people want to hear and teaching the most superficial and out-of-context understanding of scripture. E.g. "The Eunuch was baptized as an adult, so baptism is for adults." Never mind that this passage doesn't address the issue of infant baptism because the Eunuch wasn't raised in the church and would have equally been circumcised as an adult if he had converted to Judaism.)

 

The Missouri Synod of the Lutheran church is a good domination and anyone would do well to be a member of it.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you don't believe in infant baptism for your children, a Lutheran church would be accommodating and baptize your offspring when they're older. But, the adult-only baptism churches won't respect the conscience of the people who would like their children baptized.

 

Or worse, they convey doubt to those that were baptized as children and teach that Covenant children should be rebaptized as the Ana-Baptist had.

 

I would love to see anyone against infant baptism explain lucidly to me why in the Old Testament infants were circumcised. That'll never happen.

 

It doesn't take rocket science to understand that Covenant and Credo-Baptism are not the same thing. Often I come across debates where neither side even acknowledges the opposing argument whatsoever, because they keep talking past one another. They can't even agree upon the definition let alone the mode(s) of baptism.

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or worse, they convey doubt to those that were baptized as children and teach that Covenant children should be rebaptized as the Ana-Baptist had.

 

 

Yes, they're legalistic. If you did it "wrong" it does't count and you have to redo it. They'll even demand that adults who acted in good faith and after a confession of faith be rebaptized if it was done "wrong."

 

Legalism aside, those against infant baptism don't see baptism as an analogue to circumcision, a representation of a covenant relationship. They see baptism as a public declaration of faith. Regardless of how baptism was done in the Bible, I don't think they understand the biblical purpose of either circumcision or baptism.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They'll even demand that adults who acted in good faith and after a confession of faith be rebaptized if it was done "wrong."

I am one of those adults who was baptized by immersion and then rebaptized because the first baptism wasn't valid. When I was 14 years old I came to believe that water baptism was necessary for salvation and so I was baptized and became a member of the church I attended. I made a confession of faith at the time. The pastor asked me, "Do you believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, and do you take him as your personal savior?" and I answered "Yes" because I thought that that was what I was doing by being baptized.

 

It was a little more than two years later that I actually came to real faith in Christ. And it was more than two years after that that I was baptized for the second time. The church where I was baptized the second time didn't tell me my first baptism wasn't valid. In fact, I don't think I ever told them I had been baptized before. I realized that fact because I had been reading the Bible and I realized that baptism was something that took place after a person was saved.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Cornelius--unfortunately, I honestly believe those who believe as you do have wrongly interpreted, or misunderstood, those verses you used to bolster your stand on the matter of the 'rapture'. [ And, due to corruption of the modern-day biblical texts, as well as the usage of manuscripts that are actually in error by so many of those modern-day translators, etc., I stick to the KJV for the most part. I trust it's translators to have used the correct manuscripts, and to have been far more accurate in their translation, and to have allowed themselves to be led by God's Holy Spirit during their translation work, far, FAR more than any others who have ever decided to re-translate God's Word, because more of the KJV translators were more than likely actual believers in, and followers of, Jesus Christ, and it really does show in the work they produced.

 

"18 And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter"[Mark 13:18 KJV]

 

In that entire chapter, I believe the Lord is speaking to two distinct groups--both to those who would be His followers from the time of His resurrection onward [us], and to the Jews who would be here to face anti-Christ once He took His Church from the earth, before God unleashes His wrath onto those "who hate" Him, who are still here. That's why some of what He said seems to apply to some but not to others, and vice-versa. The Lord said those words in verse 18 right after He gave His admonition, which is found here:

 

"14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: 15 And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house:

16 And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment.

17 But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!"[Mark 13:14-17 KJV]

 

His words were meant for the Jews who would be sealed at the beginning of the "Great and Terrible Day of the LORD", who would be here on earth evangelizing as many people who are still here as possible, along with the two Witnesses, as well as any of the converts-to-belief in Christ who would be with them at the time anti-Christ pulls his infamous stunt, and performs the 'abomination of desolation' in the Temple, which proves to everyone exactly who that madman really is--because, that's exactly when he is possessed, or inhabited by, satan himself, ala Judas Escariot.

 

Once that verse in Mark is misunderstood, it ends by throwing off all other interpretations dealing with the Church, and the end times 'players'.

 

Pax Christi,

Christine

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"18 And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter"[Mark 13:18 KJV]

 

In v18, Jesus is talking to his disciples (specifically Peter, James, John, and Andrew, although the whole discourse is triggered by a question from an unnamed disciple). If they were going to be raptured, they wouldn't need to take flight. V18 demands that Christ's disciples be on Earth during the Tribulation.

 

1) You don't have any verse or passage in all the Bible that says, or even remotely implies, a Pretrib Rapture. You teach your doctrine, but you have no scripture to support it.

 

2) You add big things to passages that contradict you, to make the contradiction go away. You add "Jews" to a passage where the only addressees are the disciples.

 

 

The KJV uses "you" or "ye", in Mark 13, directed at the disciples, about two dozen times. Zero times are Jews, Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, or any thing like that mentioned. Jesus isn't an illiterate modern American who uses the term "you" to refer to people other than those he's addressing, let alone misusing the word two dozen times while not once mentioning those you believe he really means.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I stick to the KJV for the most part.

 

Hi Christine,

 

Please vote in our poll: Which Translation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My doctrine, eh? Cornelius, there is just no way we are communicating on this at all, and if you stoop to using remarks that clearly demonstrate your disdain for someone like me[not educated at Oxford, eh what?--nor attended any Christian seminary, nor was ordained some sort of female preacher, etc.], our conversation on any subject will end for all time.

 

I don't believe you even gave what I wrote the time of day. You are so sure of your own ideas on Scripture that anything someone 'like me' might ever have to say on the subject is not even worth reading in your estimation. Do you know Dr. Michael Heiser? If not, you should really look up his videos on youtube, and check out his website online. I think the two of you would hit it off marvelously. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My doctrine, eh? Cornelius, there is just no way we are communicating on this at all, and if you stoop to using remarks that clearly demonstrate your disdain

 

 

1) You won't even attempt to show that the Bible teaches a Pretrib Rapture.

 

2) You invent that Jesus was talking about the Jews when he was telling his followers that they would be here through the Tribulation.

 

I did read what you wrote. But, have you read what I've wrote? You've not directly replied to any point I've made. I even enumerated two simple points, and you still ignored them. You have only asserted your doctrine, without making a biblical case for it. You quoted Mark 13, only to impose your doctrine upon it. Show me that Jesus meant the Jews when he was saying "you" to his followers. Show me a passage that teaches a Pretrib Rapture. (As an aside, this is why husbands should never argue with their wives. If the husband loses an argument, he has lost. If he wins an argument, the wife thinks he has disdain for her, and she still won't be convinced, making winning still losing.)

 

The Missouri Synod Lutheran church has sound doctrine. It would represent a failure on their part to follow scripture if they were to compromise sound biblical doctrine with modern pop doctrines, like the Pretrib Rapture.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could gather together every Pretrib Rapture pastor in the world and not one of them could point out the Pretrib Rapture in the Bible, because it's not there. And, not one of them could make a credible case that Jesus meant the Jews when he said "you" to his followers being on Earth through the Tribulation. They would hypocritically grumble that I don't believe the Bible and they would spew all sorts of nonsense about why the Pretrib Rapture is biblical even though the Bible contradicts it. And, of course, they would rip their shirts, figuratively speaking, in phony indignation for my challenge against their false doctrine. People with the truth don't act that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I generally hate discussing Revelation (it's nature makes it subject to far more heat than light in discussions), I find the general dearth of references to the Church and the Spirit after the shift from the letters to the churches to "things which must occur after" uncomfortable from a post-tribulation rapture standpoint.

 

What of God's promises to Israel in Hosea? I am uncomfortable playing fast and loose with God's promises by slapping on a substitution theology bandaid and saying that the NT church is really Israel. It does violence to too many OT verses. The alternative (God lied to Israel) in Hosea is even more unthinkable. I am, therefore, left with the suspission that Paul was correct and his people will not always have a veil over their eyes.

 

My only other advice is to be careful with the tone of our posts. We are in danger of winning a debate and loosing the fellowship. :(

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My only other advice is to be careful with the tone of our posts. We are in danger of winning a debate and loosing the fellowship. :(

 

Proverbs 15:1 says, "A soft answer turns away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger."

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×