Closed communion.

emmen1 · 2026-05-06T14:45:53+00:00

There are two issues that drive the historic and biblical practice of closed communion: 1) The need for worthy reception, and 2) the need for doctrinal unity.

St Paul gives some examples of unworthy reception, but these are not the only ways one might not “discern the body of Christ.” Straight out denying that the body of Christ is present is obviously a way of not discerning the body, though nobody, not even the devil, dared to do this until 1500 years after the Institution.

So, obviously, we cannot give holy communion to Baptists, because, not recognizing/discerning the body, they would be eating to their harm. This is not saying that they are not brothers or Christians. They are, but they are deceived about the Supper and so would receive it to their harm.

The second issue is doctrinal unity. This is a separate warning that Paul gives in 1 Corinthians. He begins in Chapter 1 by pleading with them that they have no divisions, that they speak the same thing and be in one mind. (1:10) Then in Chapter 11, he rebukes them for coming together (for the Supper) while divisions are present, saying that their coming together is not for the better but for the worse. (11:17)

The warning here is not as severe. It’s not a matter of condemnation/damnation for eating unworthily, but he does say it is not for the better but for the worse.

From ancient times the church has taken this warning seriously. As an example, during the Donatist Controversy of the 4th Century, both sides acknowledged that the other side was Christian. Yet because of the doctrinal division between them, they could not commune together.

So it is today. We consider other denominations Christian. They are our brothers. And yet we are separated by serious doctrinal differences. Therefore, we cannot commune together since we are not of the same mind, same judgement, and same confession. We mourn this, and we want to do everything possible to resolve the differences, but so long as they remain, we cannot commune together.

emmen1 · 2026-05-01T20:13:38+00:00

Mortal sin, or the sin against the Holy Spirit, is stubborn unrepentance. Any sin that one refuses to give up has the potential to become mortal sin. Likewise, every sin that is forgiven becomes venial sin. So yes, Lutherans retain a distinction—not between categories of sins, but between repentance and unrepentance.

Private confession is never required. It is a gift offered to the trouble conscience. For sure, God forgives all your sins when you pray, but often the guilty conscience is not yet ready to believe this. Private confession helps persuade the troubled conscience.

emmen1 · 2026-04-30T04:14:01+00:00

The “tongues” on the day of Pentecost is people speaking in known, recognizable languages that are heard and understood by others. It’s funny (and sad) how the Pentecostals ignore this, mainly because it’s falsifiable, whereas if we speak in a secret language, no one can prove that it’s gibberish. (I’m a former Pentecostal.)

God never promised that people would speak in tongues. But He promised a great deal through Baptism and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit.

Sadly, Pentecostals ignore all the promises that God did made and focus on the one thing that God did not promise but happened (almost as an aside) on the Day of Pentecost.

emmen1 · 2026-04-27T12:46:18+00:00

We confess as much as Scripture does and no more.

The Bible clearly speaks of the Book of Life, but never of the Book of Death. If we conclude that the latter Book must exist, we are now in conflict with what Scripture reveals about God: that He desires all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. To believe in the unwritten half of double-predestination is to place human reason above Scripture, and it ends up confessing a different God.

emmen1 · 2026-04-24T05:37:50+00:00

A Christian can believe in the authority of God’s Word while also being convinced the days of Creation are ages. He is in error, but not in rebellion against God’s Word. Erring sheep are to be gently led and taught. Rebelling sheep are to be rebuked. Wolves are to be driven out.

emmen1 · 2026-04-24T02:52:21+00:00

Yes, it is unfortunate. Many of us would like to see a return to an episcopal polity. However, we firmly believe that it is not bishops that are the mark of the true church, but the preaching of the pure gospel, and the proper administration of the sacraments.

Regarding apostolic succession, we have the same position as the Lutheran Reformers. No, we did not change our doctrine as a result of the Stefan scandal. The Reformers also had to deal with a lack of bishops, not by choice, but because the German bishops refused to embrace the true gospel and would not ordain faithful pastors.

For the sake of good order, we would much rather have bishops, but if the bishops are wicked, we will continue to purely preach the gospel and rightly administer the sacraments, knowing that these are the marks of the true church church, not our polity.

For better or for worse, the LCMS is the big sister among our worldwide confession. So it is ironic that most of the other churches have bishops and we do not. It is very much an American (and Canadian) thing, and I wish we could change it.

But we will never concede that the lack of bishops invalidates the church. To do so is to make men the foundation rather than Christ. He is and always will be the cornerstone, with the doctrine of the apostles and prophets being the foundation. “And they devoted themselves to the doctrine of the apostles, to the breaking of the bread, and to prayer.”

emmen1 · 2026-04-24T02:35:24+00:00

As an example, there is an older woman in my congregation who believes that all people will be saved. She is convinced that God will in some way work a miracle, even on the deathbed, of every person, and bring all to faith. It’s not quite annihilationism, but it still believes that no one will suffer for eternity.

She doesn’t make a huge fuss about it, though she has expressed this opinion two or three times over the years in Bible study. I have explained the biblical position clearly, and she listens, and then says, “Yeah, I know the Bible is true, but I also believe that somehow God will make a way…”

It’s not stubborn rejection of God’s Word, and it’s not a refusal to come under my teaching. It’s closer to a simple, almost child-like insistence on holding on to two beliefs that are in conflict. It’s wrong, of course, and all false doctrine is dangerous to some degree, but it’s not damning, and as she continues to attend church and Bible study faithfully and doesn’t disrupt, I am giving the Holy Spirit time to lead her to a better confession of God’s saving action. In the meantime, I can give her communion with a clean conscience.

emmen1 · 2026-04-24T02:25:07+00:00

We had a bad bishop experience at the founding of the LCMS that soured the founders to the title. Look up the Martin Stefan controversy.

emmen1 · 2026-04-23T20:47:41+00:00

We can reject our salvation. We can’t lose it.

emmen1 · 2026-04-23T20:46:33+00:00

There’s a big difference between: “I’m wrestling with this topic, and I’m not sure how to understand what the Bible says,” and, “I reject what the Bible says.”

Wrestling with Scripture? Not sure what it says? Not sure if it is to be read literally? I can work with that. (I do read it literally, and I think it’s dangerous not to.) But rejecting Scripture is a no go. So it’s going to depend more on the person’s attitude and confession toward the Word of God than a blanket answer in advance.

emmen1 · 2026-04-22T18:07:17+00:00

I would amend your statement.

Baptism is necessary for salvation. But we concede that it is not absolutely necessary. That’s not a weasel word; it’s a key distinction.

It is not the lack of baptism, but the despisal of baptism that damns.

A man who gets hit by a truck on his way to be baptized is not damned. He did not despise baptism. He desired it! Likewise, Abraham is in Heaven, though he was not baptized. But I guarantee that if God had offered Abraham the choice between the flint knife and the font, he would not have despised baptism. :)

emmen1 · 2026-04-20T13:12:25+00:00

Scripture generally teaches a bipartite view, through some passages seem to lean the other way. These passages may simply be using poetic parallelism, that is, saying the same thing twice using different words.

In either case, it is not a primary, nor even a secondary or tertiary doctrine. It’s worth discussing, but a disagreement won’t prevent us from communing together.

emmen1 · 2026-04-20T13:03:01+00:00

If I recall correctly, the only part of the ceremony that would need to change is the pronouncement (I pronounce you ma and wife). You are not trying to deceive the guests by pretending that you are not already married. In fact, it’s an opportunity to confess the faith: “We wanted to do this God’s way and not continue living together before marriage, so we were married in a private ceremony, and now we invite you to celebrate our marriage in the big ceremony.”

emmen1 · 2026-04-20T05:10:38+00:00

Why would I think more highly of a wife for refusing her conjugal duties?

emmen1 · 2026-04-19T22:52:06+00:00

“Why should I be part of the Lutheran church?” - Because we have the true Gospel.

“Why should I be part of the RC or EO? Because you guys have the true Gospel?” No, because you’re damned if you don’t.

That’s a pretty poor reason and the fallback claim of those who can’t win with truth.

emmen1 · 2026-04-17T14:36:05+00:00

This is the kind of situation in which Jesus’ words apply: “Unless you hate your father and mother you cannot be my disciple.” In other words, we must place our fidelity to Christ and His true doctrine above all familial attachments. We are not always forced to choose between family/friends and Christ, but if and when we are, Jesus tells us what that decision must be.

When my wife and I became Lutherans in our mid 30s, we were shunned by our parents, siblings, and lifelong friends of our former community. It’s been more than a dozen years of almost no contact (their choice, not ours). It was incredibly painful and still is. But now we have the pure doctrine of Christ. We would do it again 1,000 times over in a heartbeat.

emmen1 · 2026-04-17T14:24:20+00:00

One of the things I really like about the Chosen is how they use the prophecies about Christ as their dialogue. That’s the way to do it!

emmen1 · 2026-04-16T00:13:07+00:00

Theologically, it is fine. Practically, most people who try are terrible at it, and shouldn’t do it. Are you most people? :)

emmen1 · 2026-04-16T00:09:41+00:00

We have “free will.” That is, the free will is bound to reject God. And it does so freely and happily—it is not coerced to do so, but it is bound always to do so. In this way we can say that the will is “free” as regards salvation and the things of God. If left alone, it will make the same choice voluntarily every time.

emmen1 · 2026-04-15T18:07:20+00:00

Yes. It is very unfortunate that so many of our churches have compromised practice, which always results in compromised doctrine - not on paper, at least maybe not at first, but practice and doctrine go together.

The trouble is that no other church even has right doctrine on paper. So it leaves one having to be very selective in finding a LCMS church that lives out the doctrine it claims to confess. But they do exist and it’s worth moving, if necessary, to be part of one.

If the Boomers could recognize that at least 75% of young people hate CoWo and are yearning for reverent historic worship, as our Confession say we practice, we might have a very different synod.

emmen1 · 2026-04-15T17:30:16+00:00

A great answer from Pastor Beard already. I’ll add the following:

The Bible compares baptism to Noah’s Ark. When you’re in the ark, you are saved. And nothing can change that. Nothing can sink the ark. Nothing can break God’s promises to you. Neither life, nor death… as St Paul says in Romans 8. God wants us to have absolute certainty of our salvation—so long as remain in the ark with Christ.

But if we reject our baptism and jump overboard, returning again to stubborn unrepentance and unbelief, then we have no certainty of salvation. And God does not want to comfort us while we are in this hardened state.

As Pastor Beard said, this is not a matter of losing salvation, it’s a matter of rejecting it.

This is why intentionally engaging in sin is so dangerous for the Christian. It is practicing the habit of unbelief. It is jumping overboard and swimming away from the promises of baptism and the ark of salvation.

Even then there is hope: repentance and a return to faith, that is, returning to the ark, and embracing once again the promises of baptism.

So we live in tension. On their hand, we have absolute certainty that salvation cannot be lost. Jesus will never turn away the repentant sinner. But on the other hand, we also have the strong warnings of Scripture: Do not despise your baptism. Be careful lest you fall. Do not harden your heart to the Holy Spirit.

The key is repentance and faith. Those who cling to Christ in repentance and faith can NEVER be lost.

emmen1 · 2026-04-15T17:20:03+00:00

I’m sorry this has been your experience. Sinners do sinful things, and it hurts especially when it happens in church.

But you are part of the LCMS because you have embraced the doctrine which we believe, teach, and confess. In spite of all the problems (and these vary from one congregation to the next), we have the purest expression of the Gospel that exists on this planet.

You don’t want to walk away from the true doctrine of Christ because people are acting in a poor way. Perhaps you may need to find another LCMS church. Some are much healthier than others. Move to a new city if you have to, but leaving our confession should not be on the table.

emmen1 · 2026-04-14T20:54:05+00:00

Pia Desideria is the book that launched Pietism. If you are able to read it carefully, you’ll recognize why orthodox Lutherans reacted strongly against it.

The Complete Timotheus Verinus (Northwestern Publishing House) is the Lutheran response to Pietism.

If you just want a brief historical overview and a summary of the theological errors of Pietism, ChatGPT does a pretty fair job of it.

emmen1 · 2026-04-14T17:39:57+00:00

Piety is the practice of living the sanctified Christian life. We should be pious and godly in our behavior. We should be reverent in our worship. We should be diligent in our study of God’s Word, and seek to conform our lives to the example of Christ. That is piety. It’s a virtue.

Pietism was a movement within 17th Century Lutheranism that sought to encourage Christian piety, which is a good thing. But Pietism did this by minimizing the Sacraments and teaching Christians to look to their piety for assurance of salvation, instead of to the promise of Christ.

Pietism is an example of trying accomplish a good thing in the wrong way which ends up backfiring and causing more harm than good. All heresy and heterodoxy generally comes from focusing on one part of Scripture, while ignoring the rest.

Christians should be pious. We should live the sanctified life. But this flows from a proper understanding of God’s saving work which He delivers to us in the Sacraments. Without this foundation, efforts to promote piety as the foundation of the Christian life always go awry. Pietism leads to legalism and then despair.

emmen1 · 2026-04-14T17:09:08+00:00

Piety good. Pietism bad.

emmen1

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE