How Important Is Docterine When Finding a Mate?

[Mikeb85]

If one's only goal is to be saved, then they are not even a Christian.

For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.

...

 

[CoachR64]

I think it's funny that you put so much emphasis on experts studying the greek/hebrew of the Bible and then teaching us the Bible... but what about the experts who HAVE studied all of those things and still disagree with the Lutheran doctrines?

Or is it a case of reading only the experts who agree with you?

Also, you have yet to answer my question, Luther, about the differences in trusting Luther to be infallable in doctrine and other denominations/religions putting that same trust in their founders.

Also, one of the things Luther had a major issue with when separating from the Catholic Church was the Church refusing to let people study the Bible on their own and instead, telling the people everything the Bible was saying and what it meant... and now the Lutheran church is falling into that same trap.

If only experts could understand the things of Christ, then Jesus would have chosen the most intelligent, well established scholars of His time to teach and spread the word. Instead, he chose a group of rag tag blue collar hard working uneducated raw men to change the world.

Coach

 

[yam]

very impt, I can't marry someone who is not a christian.

 

[WileyCoyote]

I think it's funny that you put so much emphasis on experts studying the greek/hebrew of the Bible and then teaching us the Bible... but what about the experts who HAVE studied all of those things and still disagree with the Lutheran doctrines?

Or is it a case of reading only the experts who agree with you?

Also, you have yet to answer my question, Luther, about the differences in trusting Luther to be infallable in doctrine and other denominations/religions putting that same trust in their founders.

Also, one of the things Luther had a major issue with when separating from the Catholic Church was the Church refusing to let people study the Bible on their own and instead, telling the people everything the Bible was saying and what it meant... and now the Lutheran church is falling into that same trap.

If only experts could understand the things of Christ, then Jesus would have chosen the most intelligent, well established scholars of His time to teach and spread the word. Instead, he chose a group of rag tag blue collar hard working uneducated raw men to change the world.

Coach

 

[Mikeb85]

I think it's funny that you put so much emphasis on experts studying the greek/hebrew of the Bible and then teaching us the Bible... but what about the experts who HAVE studied all of those things and still disagree with the Lutheran doctrines?

Well, if it all comes down to knowledge of Greek, the Orthodox Church wins...

 

[radhead]

Another problem I have with evangelicals is they worship their english translations of the bible as the word of God.

Martin Luther must have been an evangelical, then. One of his primary goals was to translate the Bible into the common language.

 

[Stravinsk]

*inhale*

...

*exhale*

 

[JonMiller]

I personally am happy that there are people of other denominations, even if I think they are wrong.

Because I know that my denomination is wrong, and the other denominations might have the right presentation to reach someone.

Often groups of people who worship together and 'agree' with eachother have ritual and style as an important part of their identity. These aren't the important things of being a Christian... Sometimes there might even be some point they are wrong in (like I consider infant baptism to be). But if a church that has that is able to reach someone, then I am glad about that.

I will still try to convince others to my thoughts though, because I Think they are right! I still think they are important.

JM

 

[Niels]

Christians sometimes reference the original Greek and Hebrew *because* they're evangelical, not in spite of it. In fact, the only time I've personally witnessed a rigorous scholarly approach to the Bible was in a non-denominational evangelical church. When you are deeply concerned with presenting the gospel as God intended, you will want to present the most accurate and compelling case. I don't mean to imply that all churches who use those labels are equally as rigorous when it comes to doctrine, or that others are not, but this is just something that I've experienced firsthand.

Anyway, I humbly submit that The Church is much more than a matter of denominational affiliation. There are good Lutheran churches, good Presbyterian churches, good Catholic churches, good Orthadox churches etc. There are also a few misguided ones that give the others a bad name. It really depends on which church you're talking about, and when you attend. Even with all of the additional structure and "middle management" that permeates some denominations, The Church still consists of God's people.

 

[JonMiller]

My experience with non-denominational evangelicals is that they often have their hearts in the right place... in a better place than many of the more scholarly people. But that they are lacking in the scholarly department.

JM

 

[Niels]

Which just goes to show how much depends on the people who comprise a particular church. For example, the pop cultural idea of a non-denominational evangelical service consists of praise songs and maybe some sort of political message... but in addition to some praise songs, we also had a vocal choir and a bell choir, as well as brass and string ensembles. Our music director was educated at Julliard and Columbia, and had a PhD in music education. That certainly influenced the worship style, and nothing seemed watered down to me. We were evangelical in that we were a strong supporter of foreign missions, and non-denominational in that we did not have a denominational affiliation. I don't recall hearing support of a particular political party platform, but most of the congregation seemed to be pro-life.

The downside, of course, is that I may have been somewhat spoiled by the experience.

 

[JonMiller]

My denomination, which I have the most experience with, mostly has pastors who have 4 years of theology + 3 years masters program with requirements including hebrew and greek. So most can, and some do, make references to the original languages/etc.

It seems that evangelical nondenominational is often put together by someone with a call. If that someone has a lot of charisma, and is blessed, then the involvement can get quite impressive, comparable to a highly organized group.

JM

 

[radhead]

Christians sometimes reference the original Greek and Hebrew *because* they're evangelical, not in spite of it.

Exactly. In fact, I've never heard the accusation that evangelicals were not interested in the authentic scriptures until this thread. My impression is that they were the most scholarly and took the Bible more seriously.

 

[radhead]

Until I joined this forum, I also never knew that the church known as Lutheran still studied Martin Luther (or even cared about him). The biggest "Martin Lutheran"'s that I know are members of an Evangelical Free church.

 

[Stravinsk]

That being said... Can you provide me evidence of one example of doctrine that is in the Greek/Hebrew that does not exist in our English translations?

Read my sig.

Not one english bible translates.... not KJV, not Young's literal translation, not Tyndales version, not any, what is written there correctly, and I have them all.

That is, unless you believe that the Gospel writers did not know the difference between cardinal and ordinal numbers(Mark 16:9 uses the ordinal, all others use the cardinal), nor the Greek word for "week", which was known in the 1st Century, nor the difference between the plural and singular forms of the word "Sabbath".

There is no way:

πρώτῃ σαββάτου (mark 16:9)
and
μίαν σαββάτων (all other references though some use definate article "τῶν")


mean the same thing.

And this *is* a major doctrine in Christianity. Modern Christianity as an institution is based on it. It is why most celebrate Easter and worship on Sunday instead of Sabbath.

Why else do you think I am so nuts about it?

 

[Niels]

My denomination, which I have the most experience with, mostly has pastors who have 4 years of theology + 3 years masters program with requirements including hebrew and greek. So most can, and some do, make references to the original languages/etc.

It seems that evangelical nondenominational is often put together by someone with a call. If that someone has a lot of charisma, and is blessed, then the involvement can get quite impressive, comparable to a highly organized group.

JM

I think that's because many nondenominational churches start small, perhaps in somebody's basement, and grow from there.

The church that I belonged to was several decades old, and apparently in a different phase. Deacons and elders were selected by the congregation, and pastors were selected by the deacons and elders. Rather than being centered around a charismatic leader or denominational tenets, the organizational structure rested on the shoulders of the members. The junior and senior pastors had educational backgrounds similar to what you describe. I assumed that their masters degrees were from 2 year programs, but maybe it was 3. I'm not very familiar with seminaries and how they operate. I seem to recall that they had some ties to the Lutheran and Presbyterian churches. Congregationalist is the title that I would use, based on organizational traits and theological positions, but it was officially referred to as nondenominational.

 

[Luther073082]

Martin Luther must have been an evangelical, then. One of his primary goals was to translate the Bible into the common language.

Yes thats true, I agree that the bible should be translated as best possible to the common language.

But Martin Luther would have never advocted what many evangelical churchs do which is to elect a pastor. He would have never ever backed the idea of a uneducated person acting in a teaching role like that. Because you have to put things into its proper prospective. While the english translations give us a lot, they don't give us everything.

Coach:

I'm not even arguing Lutheran doctrines here, I'm arguing for an educated clergy that can read and write greek and hebrew.

Also you seem to mis-understand Luther quite a bit. While he did not belive that one man should be able to determine all doctrine (and the Lutheran doctrines are not ever determined by one man.) he did belive that his doctrines where correct and he made that clear in his writings.

If you read his large catechism for example he basically says that those who don't belive in infant baptism are confused by the devil.

Read his catechism and there was no "maybe" or I think . . . it was just "I am right"

Until I joined this forum, I also never knew that the church known as Lutheran still studied Martin Luther (or even cared about him). The biggest "Martin Lutheran"'s that I know are members of an Evangelical Free church.

I've had the honor of joining a 500 year long history of teaching students (middle school) from the very same catechism that he wrote over 500 years ago and Lutheran churchs have been using since then. I did that for about 3 years, I'm not doing that anymore because I'm trying to plan a wedding.

 

[GQ Chris]

I love education, I will continue to formally and informally educate myself as long as I live, but the Gospel is not just for the educated elite. The Gospel is a very simple message. I have met some Preachers who didn't get formally educated in Seminary but seem like they have a PHD, while there are some others who were Seminary trained and yet you couldn't tell by their preaching.

 

[CoachR64]

Luther....

That is the entire point! You believe Luther was right because he said he was. Joseph Smith, Calvin, Muhammed, etc... all said and believe they were right too. How does him believing he was the only holder of truth differ from these other founders?

I also still find it an absolute joke that there is the belief only the very intelligent and well educated are worthy of being able to teach the word of God. That is taking away the power of God to use those he chooses to teach His word and to reach the masses. That is the same problem Christ ran into on Earth, where the Pharisees were the educated elite who felt they alone were worthy of teaching the Bible.

Also, didn't Luther have a problem with the Church adding to the Word of God? Isn't that what you are doing now by teaching the catechism along side the Bible? The catechism is man's interpretations and beliefs on the Bible... it is a book of man where the Bible is God breathed.

I have no problem with you believing you are right. That is fine. If you didn't firmly believe those things, than what would be the point? My problem is the way you treat others who don't believe the same as you.

Coach

 

[welshman]

Absolutely spot on mate

I had this thrown at me when I was in the States while spending my time with my ex-girlfriend and her family. I have nothing against education. I'm all for it. What some seem to forget with their PhD's and M.Div however is that God uses availability as well as ability.

I love education, I will continue to formally and informally educate myself as long as I live, but the Gospel is not just for the educated elite. The Gospel is a very simple message. I have met some Preachers who didn't get formally educated in Seminary but seem like they have a PHD, while there are some others who were Seminary trained and yet you couldn't tell by their preaching.