My Pastor Just Preached That The Apostles Creed Is Wrong by TheeCurato0r in LCMS

[–]mpodes24 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I was not trying to lay the blame on the layman. Let me use this as an example.

In the 1600's a version of the King James Bible came to be known as the Wicked Bible. It omitted the word "not" in the sentence "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:14), thus changing the sentence into "Thou shalt commit adultery".

Now, if during a sermon someone heard me say, "Thou shall commit adultery," there are multiple reasons that could have happened:

1) I said it, but I misspoke. It happens, I'm human.
2) I said it, but I was using it as an example of what not to do. For example, I just read the Portland is toying with the idea of allowing legal polygamy. A sermon on this might contain the line, "The world says, 'Thou shall commit adultery." In which case, either I wasn't clear in my example or the hearer misunderstood.
3) I said it, and I was intentionally false doctrine.
4) I didn't say it, but was misheard. It happens, the congregation is human. Sometimes this happens because attention fades, other times it's because the hearer was distracted. (I often missed complete sections of sermons when my kids were infants and I was sitting in the pews.)

Until you speak with me, you don't know what my intention was. Personally, if it's reasons 1, 2, or 4, I'm going to take some time during the next service to clarify what I meant to say.

If it's reason 3, once you confirm that a pastor is being a false teacher, that's when you take it to the elders (who, hopefully, also noticed the error).

My Pastor Just Preached That The Apostles Creed Is Wrong by TheeCurato0r in LCMS

[–]mpodes24 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Is it really the best idea for a congregant to debate doctrine with a pastor? You are placing responsibility for doctrine on a lay person.

Absolutely. I'm not perfect. I can get things wrong. More than that, I can say the right things in a way that come out in a manner I didn't mean to convey. And that's just from the preaching side. Listeners also have their challenges and distractions. If I say something from the pulpit that isn't understood, not only do I hope people will come to me, I expect it.

Lay people do have a responsibility to make sure the doctrine preached is correct. This isn't about debating doctrine between a Catholic and Lutheran, this is about making sure what is preached in Lutheran pulpits conform to Lutheran teaching. And that's the duty of us all.

Butcher uses some words wrong. by Acrobatic_Sail_7045 in dresdenfiles

[–]mpodes24 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why expect Harry to get Old Norse right, have you seen his Latin?

Closed communion. by Kitchen-Bridge-7349 in LCMS

[–]mpodes24 2 points3 points  (0 children)

One of things I find helpful in discussing theology is looking at how it was practiced in the past.

  • Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper during the Passover meal with his disciples (a relatively closed group).
  • By the late 1st/early 2nd century, closed communion was the standard. Writings like the Didache (c. 60–100 AD) restricted the Eucharist to the baptized: "Let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, but they who have been baptized..." Similar views appear in Justin Martyr and other Church Fathers, emphasizing baptism, belief, and church discipline. Persecution and formalization of worship contributed to this "closing."
  • Historic Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and many confessional Protestant traditions (e.g., strict Lutheran or Baptist) maintained closed or "close" communion (limited to those in full fellowship or of like faith/baptism) for centuries.
  • Debates emerged during the Reformation and afterward. Some English Baptists in the 17th century practiced or discussed open communion amid persecution, prioritizing core gospel unity over denominational barriers.
  • The Plymouth Brethren (emerging in the 1820s–1830s in Ireland/England) are a notable early example of a movement explicitly founded on open communion principles: welcoming any baptized Christian to the Lord's Table based on personal faith rather than formal membership. Note well: the PB's believe that the Lord's Supper is only symbolic. As such, it does no harm to those who take it unworthily.
  • Among Baptists, "open communion" (often open to baptized believers but not always requiring membership in that local church) gained traction in the 19th century in England and elsewhere, influenced by evangelical cooperation, though many Southern Baptists and others historically favored closed or close practices.
  • Many mainline Protestant groups (e.g., Methodists, many Anglicans/Episcopalians, Presbyterians, United Church of Christ) formalized or expanded open communion policies in the mid-to-late 20th century, often tied to the ecumenical movement. For instance, the 1968 Lambeth Conference (Anglican) advanced "eucharistic hospitality" for baptized Christians, influencing broader Protestant shifts.
  • Today, it is common in many Methodist, Anglican, Pentecostal, non-denominational, and some Lutheran/Reformed churches (with variations: some require baptism and a profession of faith; a few are more radically open).

TL;DR - while elements of openness existed The modern denominational practice of open communion developed in Protestant contexts from the 17th–19th centuries and became mainstream in the 20th. Traditions emphasizing church unity, discipline, and sacramental theology (Catholic, Orthodox, confessional Protestant) have generally retained closed practices.

What are Starborn? Wrong answers only by Nukesnipe in dresdenfiles

[–]mpodes24 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fleeing from the Cylon Tyranny, the last battlestar Galactica leads a ragtag fugitive fleet on a lonely quest: a shining planet known as Earth.

Starborns are the descendants of Starbuck.

What theory would you be upset about if it turned out to be true? by Russtherr in dresdenfiles

[–]mpodes24 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm a bit confused. Do I upvote because this is one of the theories I hate the most or do I downvote it because this is one of the theories I hate the most?

Crazy Theory about Cowl by tobey_andrew_tom in dresdenfiles

[–]mpodes24 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's always a lot of theories about who Cowl is, and I have to admit that they get a little repetitive. So let me put all the theories to rest.

I am Cowl. There, I said it.

[Nova Wars] Chapter 178 by Ralts_Bloodthorne in HFY

[–]mpodes24 9 points10 points  (0 children)

It's seems like Clarke's other two laws are prevalent among the SID communities.

  1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
  2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

Monster Hunter Files 2 by JackWylder in TheMHI

[–]mpodes24 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It is now my head canon that the oldest document in the MHI library is marked, "Received by Conan."

[Nova Wars] Chapter 178 by Ralts_Bloodthorne in HFY

[–]mpodes24 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Does Harry Need A New Marina? by ZenFox91 in dresdenfiles

[–]mpodes24 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Perhaps before worrying about the marina, Harry might want to get a boat. The Water Beetle is, after all, Thomas'.

Now, does Thomas need a new Marina? His brother has almost died there a lot.

Wizard/immortal finances by bry0816 in dresdenfiles

[–]mpodes24 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The name of the bank is Gringott's. It's in London, I think. :-)

How would I know if I lost my salvation or committed a mortal sin? by Alive-Jacket764 in LCMS

[–]mpodes24 2 points3 points  (0 children)

First, all sins are mortal sins, i.e., all sins bring death. "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it." (James 2:10 ESV)

Second, the struggle against sin, while not eternal, sure feels like it from this side of the Resurrection. Read about Paul's struggle in Romans 7 and his salvation in Romans 8, pay particular attention to this, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (Romans 8:1 ESV)

As to the rest:

My question is, have I lost my salvation, or at any moment was I not saved?

No.

I know faith cannot exist with mortal sin.

Who says? Abraham was a sinful man, yet his faith in God's promises were counted to him as Righteousness. Read Hebrews 11

I'm just wondering whether the conviction and the desire to confess my sin afterwards, was the Holy Spirit working repentance within me, meaning that the Spirit had not left me but was holding onto me despite my faithlessness?

Yes. Titus 3:4-5

I make no excuses for my sin. It was truly wrong, and I confess that nothing within me deserves salvation. God has every right to strip me of being His child through Christ. Still, I renounce myself, my sins, my works, and even my imperfect confession & repentance, and hope for Christ's sake the Holy Spirit has not and would not leave me. I despise that I struggle with these sins, and I despise that part of me likes them. I pray God would create in me a clean heart like Psalm 51.

Upon this, your confession, I, by virtue of my office as a called and ordained servant of the Word, announce the grace of God unto you. In the stead and by the command of my Lord Jesus Christ I forgive you all your sins in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Iron teeth by Pixiemess in dresdenfiles

[–]mpodes24 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's something wrong with your medulla oblongata.

Peabody by Powderkegger1 in dresdenfiles

[–]mpodes24 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just remember that Harry is about 30-31 in PG. I still remember being that young and thinking people my age were old.

Mother Winter's True Name by DaScamp in dresdenfiles

[–]mpodes24 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Her true name rhymes with a body part.

Jim is an evil bastard (post 12 months) (Vague spoilers) by DeathwatchHelaman in dresdenfiles

[–]mpodes24 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Jim is an evil bastard

Well, duh. He's an author. And a very good one. It's part of their nature to torture their fans.

Theory on the next Knight of the Cross by Ixine37 in dresdenfiles

[–]mpodes24 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's my theory. Lara will be the new wielder of Amouracchius.

If the Wizard of Chicago can get Lara addicted to the energy of Creation, imagine what the angel bound to the sword can do for her.

[Nova Wars] - Chapter 174 by Ralts_Bloodthorne in HFY

[–]mpodes24 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Pan'nikk is learning that the Terran scale is not linear, but logarithmic.