Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
As someone else has asked, why do you think that they don't? On what basis do you declare that Presbyterians don't receive Baptists? They receive people from the AOG and from the LRC. I've attended Presbyterian assemblies during both sojourns.
If you mean to say that they don't just ask the Baptist group to close-up shop and join with them, that is not what we do. We don't presume that there is no reason for their assembly, but rather that there is. Just like there is reason for ours. But there is essentially no such thing as assemblies joining together. People assemble. And when they do they join together. And if their joining has the general doctrinal positions of Presbyterians, so be it. Same for the Baptists.
And there is the rub. You have problems with the fact that they understand things differently. Well, you do too. And if you suddenly had all the Presbyterians, Baptists, Anglicans, AOG, Lutherans, RCCs, EOCs, etc. in one place, that would be something. But do you think it would be simply wonderful all the time? What about those who believe that you can lose your salvation? Will they be required to stop teaching that in smaller groupings? (Don't presume that the meetings will look like LRC meetings because you are not the decider of such things when you are now the marble in the corner of the boxcar.) Will the assembly as a whole come to make certain positions the ones they allow to be taught and not others? What if the ones they latch onto aren't the ones you want? What if they don't want to have and LSM materials used in the meetings or taught?
I have asked Evangelical this many times and he has avoided the question. He is obviously convinced that the only way it works is that it works entirely his way which means that oneness only occurs on the ground of dirt, using LSM material, having a "church in [city]" sign out front, dismissing James "because of God's economy," and so on.
Good luck with that.
Apparently some that cause division mark themselves and start their own group. Then they find a way to declare that everyone else is the one that is divided.
Did not the LRC separate from everyone else because they were not good enough?
I would suggest that Luther did not separate from the RCC as much as the RCC gave him a choice — drop it, run, or die. If you can't drop it for conscience, then the options are run or die.
Inquisitor: "Cake or death!"
Guy on trial: "I'll take cake."
Inquisitor: 'That's a popular option today."
OK. My "squirrel" moment is over.
You want to there to be the LRC today while you are alive, but you don't want Luther to have separated. Without that separation, you wouldn't likely be even close to having an LRC now. In fact, we might all be participants in an RCC that is still burning heretics at the stake. Or an RCC that is somewhat evangelical. (Don't want to be too evangelical because that is probably beyond what is reasonable and supportable.) Then this discussion might actually be part of the first nail in the door. Just not somewhere in Germany.
|
You've given me a lot to think about. I think they don't receive each other in a full way because outside of occasional get togethers, or ecumenical services as they call them, they don't hold a common Lord's Table meeting and if you are a minister in one denomination you often cannot minister in the other denomination. And while some can point to individual fellowship they have had between each other in small groups etc, well anyone can do that. Even we do that.
Here's the real rub, I have one denominational background and others in the LC have different denominational backgrounds, and others have only known the LC. Yet we can all happily meet together every Sunday for the Lord's Table meeting. We may have different opinions over salvation etc. I have yet to see such fellowship and oneness between denominations. While it could happen between like-minded denominations, it certainly does not happen between all denominations, particularly when concerning Anglican/Lutheran/Catholic/Orthodox etc.
I have been to ecumenical services before during my denominational days where first one denomination will do their bit for 30 minutes ,then another denomination will do their bit for another 30 minutes. It's not the same thing. It feels like when a divorced couple get together once a year for their son's birthday.
Your comment about Luther doesn't make sense to me because remember we consider Luther to be part of the Recovery. That was God's move. But if the RC church was a genuine church then I would consider Luther's move to be sectarian and divisive.
Regarding the LSM publications, there is no demand placed on anyone to use them although people are encouraged. What if someone wants to speak Swahili and we only offer English or Chinese. What if a Catholic or Anglican, doesn't want to use the order of service book, what if a Pentecostal doesn't want to pray in tongues, and what if a family wants to baptize their infant baby in a Baptist church. These are all practical matters that should not prevent anyone from participating in the Lord's Table.
I could go further and ask, what if a Christian does not even want to partake of the Lord's table ,sing worship songs or pray? Are you going to make a denomination to cater for their "needs" too? When you think about it, what is really so different between a denomination which caters for people's beliefs that only adults should be baptized, versus a denomination which caters for people's beliefs that we should not hold the Lord's table meeting?
We have to draw the line somewhere. But actually we don't - the core problem is that church is defined by what caters for people's needs rather than what the bible reveals church should be. This is why today we even see LGBT churches that cater for their needs.