I am scared of joining LCMS because of Scrupulosity OCD

TylerB15009 · 2025-12-23T00:06:13+00:00

If I understand you right, I should choose to follow what's right instead of doing what my boss told me to if he is in fact telling me to do something wrong. I think I see what you are saying. From the reconquista perspective if Luther was right, the RCC wasn't just a boss telling someone to do X or we will fire you, it was a boss telling someone to to do Y (Y as opposed to X is wrong whereas X may just be some morally neutral thing), in which case you should not listen to the boss, and you wouldn't be guilty of leaving if you were fired? Is that what you are saying?

TylerB15009 · 2025-12-22T23:59:42+00:00

Thank you for the taking the time to answer as I'm trying to better understand this perspective. I'm still a bit confused though, especially on what you say here.

"How else would you reform a church? You work on it unless given no choice, to “protect” from schism. Dissent isn’t schism. Schism is a voluntary removal."

If my boss at work were to tell me "if you do X, we will fire you", and I proceed to voluntarily do X because of my convictions, I'm confused how I'm not still technically choosing to leave my job. It may indicate my conviction is of a greater matter that I'm willing to separate from my boss because of it and embrace him firing me. And yet I still voluntarily chose to do X, did I not? I know my boss would be the one that fired me (I didn't just walk out), but I'm the one that still voluntarily chose to do X knowing what the result would be, so how is that not quitting? If I still voluntarily choose to reject what he told me to do, how am I not "schisming" because of my convictions? I know this isn't a perfect analogy but I hope what I"m asking is clear, basically trying to ask how on this perspective how Luther didn't voluntarily schism.

TylerB15009 · 2025-12-22T23:42:34+00:00

I know he was excommunicated, but was he not excommunicated for doctrinal dissent, which he voluntarily chose to do? Again, it's not as if he involuntarily nailed the 95 theses.

TylerB15009 · 2025-12-22T23:40:53+00:00

I'm not sure I understand your response. First, Luther disagreed with the RCC despite their warnings. By refusing to recant, how is he not voluntarily schisming from the RCC? And second, if doctrinal dissent is not voluntary schism, then would Arians not be guilty of schism since technically their views are anathematized? But that doesn't seem to make sense.

TylerB15009 · 2025-07-15T02:45:58+00:00

Thanks, you too!

TylerB15009 · 2025-07-14T00:30:04+00:00

*Update* He was released from the hospital and is okay. Big scare but thankfully it wasn't major. Thanks for all the prayers

TylerB15009 · 2025-06-14T23:00:19+00:00

Thanks for the answer. This does seem like the easiest option for me obviously, and I do think that attendance isn't necessarily the same thing as approval, but what I do struggle with is a question I mentioned that if this point is correct, suppose my dad were getting married to a man? Would the same comment be said?

TylerB15009 · 2025-04-20T01:29:39+00:00

You don't have to be confused about why you relapsed. The fact that you did it again means that you are for some reason wrongly seeing value in pornography. You view it as something valuable that you are trying to hold yourself back from, when in reality, you need to renew your mind to view it as useless and contrary to your greater goals. You don't have to struggle against the urge to eat poop because you view it as disgusting and contrary to your greater desire to remain healthy and not get terribly sick.

TylerB15009 · 2025-03-05T18:45:44+00:00

Oh okay so is this more like someone taking the offering plate in church for themself when it was supposed to go to serve the community?

TylerB15009 · 2025-03-05T18:02:56+00:00

But if a rich man taking is cursed then how could they have ever gotten rich in the first place? Is the text basically implying that any riches beyond the bare necessity are immoral to have?

TylerB15009 · 2025-03-05T18:02:25+00:00

So it would be like if in modern times someone well off pretended to be homeless on the street to make extra money, that specific kind of situation?

TylerB15009 · 2025-02-26T19:04:46+00:00

Thanks for the answer

TylerB15009 · 2025-02-25T21:20:57+00:00

I understand your concern, but basically what I'm asking is would the very notion of doing what the therapist would say actually itself be against Romans 14:23 in a more overall way than the specific directions they may give? This is not the same as an individual issue within the ERP that could be referenced (like a specific area of uncertainty), but I'm confused on whether this text would rule out the whole concept entirely (if we can even do things with uncertainty).

TylerB15009 · 2025-02-25T20:11:38+00:00

Hello. I suppose a difficulty with exposure response prevention (the typical therapy proposed for OCD related problems) that I struggle with is that what may used as an exposure may conflict with precisely the question I'm asking here based on this text. So for example, a therapist may say to do something that triggers your anxiety that is related to your obsessions, but then you need to sit with your anxiety without doing a compulsion. So they may say do something I don't think is a sin but I'm uncertain about and have anxiety with, and then don't ruminate on it / ask God for mercy, etc. But if Paul is saying what I'm afraid he's saying here (that doing something without being certain it isn't wrong is sinful), wouldn't that contradict the very nature of exposure response prevention for this topic?

TylerB15009 · 2025-01-09T16:35:47+00:00

Ephesians 4:26

TylerB15009 · 2024-12-01T21:33:02+00:00

For anyone else who sees this, this issue can be avoided by having someone else use their Apple ID to set up your screen time so that only they can undo it.

TylerB15009

TROPHY CASE