How Important Is Docterine When Finding a Mate?

[Luther073082]

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?

No I belive Luther was right because IMO his teachings match up to scripture completly.

Besides I don't agree with Luther completly. Luther belived the papacy to be the office of the anti-Christ. However I disagree with him as that teaching does not match with requirement stated in 1 John 2:22. Though many confessional Lutherans still hold to it, I've not yet seen a through defense of the teaching.

However I choose to forgive Luther for his doctrinal error for multiple reasons. First and most importantly because I don't consider a difference in said teaching to be irreconcilable with my own understanding of scripture. Secondly because I tend to agree with his interpretations on all MAJOR points of doctrine. And lastly I realize that he was emotionally involved when he wrote that. The pope really was trying to kill him and so it is not unreasonable to expect that one might think only evil of someone who wants to kill you.

However none of that changes the fact that I do believe this to be an error of interpretation.

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.

The authoritiy to teach the word of God was passed onto the church.

James says that not too many people should presume to be teachers. On top of that the bible is clear that then and its very clear that false teachers are still wondering all over.

The church sets standards for a reason so as people are not misled by false teachers or people who are misunderstood.

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.

So no one should read any books about systematic theology or understandings of faith at all then. Study bibles should be banned.

They are all interpretations of what a person thinks the bible means. Why is it for some reason that evangelicals can publish study bibles and all sorts of other crap that only came out in the last 25 years and everyone thinks these books are great. But Luther publishes 2 catechisms and everyone suddenly now thinks that he's adding onto the word of God??

I question if these people have even looked at Luther's catechism, because its not really like the Catechism of the Roman Catholic church.

Luther's problem with "adding on" was that several books in the Roman Catholic bible he considered to be uninspired and he as well as other protestant leaders including Calvin and Zwiligi threw out these books from their cannon. (Although Luther did say the books where good to read, however not inspired.)

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.

And what do I do to people who disagree with me? Tell them I won't take communion with them? I'm still having trouble figuring out what exactly you have a problem with.

 

[welshman]

I have only just tuned into this thread again. What I would say is this:

Just because you have an "education" in the Bible does not mean that you will teach the truth.

You can label someone a "Bishop", "Rev.", "Dr.", "Apostle"....whatever you want; it doesn't stop them teaching rubbish.

You can stick a donkey in a nice suit, give him a Bible and call him "Bishop donkey"...it's still a donkey.

N.B: that is in no way having a go at Luther or anyone personally.

 

[Mrs. Luther073082]

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

From what I could tell Kirk was originally just having a peaceful and informative conversation with people like lostaquarium and others in this thread, and then overit randomly jumped in and started criticizing him. What did she criticize? Him thinking he is 100% right. Then you jumped in, too, when Kirk started defending himself -- I'm not sure if you were trying to defend overit or what but Kirk is not the one that started this mess. All of his posts in the first 7 pages or so of this thread are just normal, peaceful discussion. After the post below is when this whole thread went into train wreck mode...

http://www.christianforums.com/t7390419-6/#post52571231

Not very important really-unless they are very dogmatic in their beliefs.....

As an example..Kirk...and not trying to pick on ya lol...but my thoughts on YOUR beliefs of the accuracy of your denomination being 100pct correct is that it's ...your opinion and not based on Biblical evidence but books and instructions handed down after the fact..in other words..the more dogmatic type "churches"...tend to not really have the Bible backing up their 'beliefs'.

I've always been curious though-was Melissa Lutheran or did she simply 'convert' to your denomination and accept it through and through as 100pct truth-simply because that's the way it has to be for you-or because she agrees.... sorry for the bluntness...maybe i can just ask her at our other home

If you really have no problem with him thinking his beliefs are right, maybe you should stop arguing with him about them and trying to convince him that they are wrong. And if you have a problem with how he treats others, maybe that would better be taken up in a thread where he actually started it...

 

[Luther073082]

I have only just tuned into this thread again. What I would say is this:

Just because you have an "education" in the Bible does not mean that you will teach the truth.

You can label someone a "Bishop", "Rev.", "Dr.", "Apostle"....whatever you want; it doesn't stop them teaching rubbish.

(and that is in no way having a go at Luther or anyone personally)

Understandable. . . however it makes it far less likely. The thing is with churchs that require an education on their clergy it also means they almost always have oversight.

For example, if my pastor says something that I know is counter to church doctrine I would currently go to the bishop of the Indiana/Kentucky synod, the Rev James Stuck. If necessary the problem could be moved up the chain to the council of bishops, the council of the ELCA, and also possibly the presiding bishop Mark Hanson.

All of them have the power to do something about the problem. It could be as simple as calling up the pastor, having him apologize to the congregation and correct himself or it could go into an investigation and a removal of his ordination.

A similar process could take place when/if I change Lutheran churchs to the LCMS.

In most churchs where a pastor has no requirements upon them, this long reach oversight just doesn't exist.

 

[CoachR64]

Ok, to address a couple of issues....

So, you are admitting that Martin Luther held to a false doctrine and misinterpretation, so is it not entirely plausible that he misinterpreted other doctrines he clung to as well? As a fallable man, could his beliefs and own personal thoughts influenced his translating and what he felt the scriptures meant? Many scholars have read, studied, and aligned beliefs 100% to scripture that differ from Martin Luther.

And I agree, not everyone is called to be a teacher (not the job profession, but teaching gospel) by Christ. But what does that have to do with the claim only intelligent well schooled scholars are worthy of teaching and preaching the Word of God? Some of the most powerful preachers of our time are raw, passionate believers in Christ. If it was all about intelligence, Harvard would be the mecca of Biblical scholars.

Also, Luther, we have addressed this issue already. When you start calling people's beliefs lies and heresy, you are calling them liars and heretics. Also, they way you treated LittleTigress like she was stupid and beneath you was a bit much. The little headsmack smilie (x a million)... was that really necessary?

Melissa, I respect the fact that you want to defend your fiance, but he is a big boy and he can take care of himself. Like I said to him above, his treatment of Little Tigress in this thread is a prime example of how he treats those who disagree with him as stupid and beneath him. I am not taking up for her directly, as I think she can handle herself just fine in debates, I am just tired of seeing that attitude here.

Coach

 

[CoachR64]

Also, to the teacher things...

One of the most powerful men of God I have met in my life was a man that spent many years of his life battling alcohol issues and extreme violence. He ended up locked up in prison for murder. When he got to prison, he was feared inside the walls. No one messed with him because of his violent streak.

After time, a fellow prisoner shared a Bible with him. Tony began reading the Bible and studying God's word. His family began praying for him. Tony eventually gave His heart to Christ and became a changed man.

To this day, Tony spends his time going into prisons across this country to preach the word of God. Many men have given their lives to Christ and changed their hearts because of Tony. A man who was an alcoholic, loved to fight, lacked education, and even killed another man was chosen by God to go out and reach people for the Kingdom.

Coach

 

[Stravinsk]

Besides I don't agree with Luther completly. Luther belived the papacy to be the office of the anti-Christ. However I disagree with him as that teaching does not match with requirement stated in 1 John 2:22. Though many confessional Lutherans still hold to it, I've not yet seen a through defense of the teaching.

Luther, if a stranger on the street claimed to be the Son of God and the Holy Father, would you perhaps think he was Anti-Christ?

"Anti-Christ" doesn't neccessarily mean "stand in complete opposition to". It can mean "in place of".

KJV Matthew 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.​

Martin Luther was not at all alone among the Reformationists in this belief.​

 

[JonMiller]

I am happy that Kirk thinks some beliefs are heresy. I do to. Anyone who has beliefs in Christianity does the same. Do you think that someone has a belief that Christ was not God is correct?

Note that this is speaking as someone who disagrees with some of Kirk's beliefs. But part of having beliefs is believing that they correct.

JM

 

[Blank123]

i don't think anyone is arguing against that. who in their right mind would believe something they believe is a lie? doesn't quite work. The debate is centered on beliefs in which there is a disagreement.

 

[intricatic]

Understandable. . . however it makes it far less likely. The thing is with churchs that require an education on their clergy it also means they almost always have oversight.

For example, if my pastor says something that I know is counter to church doctrine I would currently go to the bishop of the Indiana/Kentucky synod, the Rev James Stuck. If necessary the problem could be moved up the chain to the council of bishops, the council of the ELCA, and also possibly the presiding bishop Mark Hanson.

All of them have the power to do something about the problem. It could be as simple as calling up the pastor, having him apologize to the congregation and correct himself or it could go into an investigation and a removal of his ordination.

A similar process could take place when/if I change Lutheran churchs to the LCMS.

In most churchs where a pastor has no requirements upon them, this long reach oversight just doesn't exist.

This is the same logical sequence that I have seen naturalists use to justify their epistemology.

They claim that peer review in the sciences diminishes the problem of the reliability of the senses, by adding to the mix other people with the same senses as they have. The argument is that the oversight created by that process allows much more certainty than if no peer review process existed. It still doesn't in any way address the problem of the reliability of the senses, though, because if the senses are unreliable, then many people with the same senses will be just as unreliable as just one person.

 

[GQ Chris]

I think some Lutheran doctrines are still heretical, take for example transubstantiation... even though I love Martin Luther for standing up to the Popes, they still hold a lot of Roman Catholic beliefs that I don't believe in.

And yeah, the treatment if little tigress was a bit much and unnecessary.

 

[Blank123]

meh, i've forgiven Luther for all that - its really not that big of a deal. he did move on and addressed the actual issues. thats all that really matters.

 

[Mrs. Luther073082]

I think some Lutheran doctrines are still heretical, take for example transubstantiation... even though I love Martin Luther for standing up to the Popes, they still hold a lot of Roman Catholic beliefs that I don't believe in.

Just to clarify...

Transubstantiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod - In, With, and Under

The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod - Bread and Wine

And yeah, the treatment if little tigress was a bit much and unnecessary.

I agree and said as much on the phone tonight.

However, that does not change that he was jumped all over by other people first, when he wasn't originally being rude. Just pointing that out.

 

[Mikeb85]

I think some Lutheran doctrines are still heretical, take for example transubstantiation... even though I love Martin Luther for standing up to the Popes, they still hold a lot of Roman Catholic beliefs that I don't believe in.

While our Church holds that both Lutherans and Roman Catholics are heretical, the fact is, stuff like 'real presense' (which the RCC describes as 'transubstantiation'), a hierarchy of Bishops, Presbyters (Priests) and Deacons, Saints, etc..., are all traditional Christian beliefs that existed for the vast majority of the history of Christianity.

Many of these 'Roman Catholic' beliefs (not all, but many) come not from Rome, but from the earliest days of Christianity.

 

[Mikeb85]

By the way, how did this thread go from 'How important is doctrine...', to bashing traditional Christians? Is this place turning into GT (General Theology forum)?

 

[JonMiller]

While I am very much not a traditional Christian (Othodox, Catholic, etc), I have gained recent appreciation for them for the last 2000 years.

The Coptics, Mar Thoma, and Syrian churches are also much higher on ritual/etc. They split off even earlier.

And this is someone speaking who leans towards the anti-Catholic church/Pope position of Martin Luther (my church is even more into that).

JM

 

[Mikeb85]

While I am very much not a traditional Christian (Othodox, Catholic, etc), I have gained recent appreciation for them for the last 2000 years.

The Coptics, Mar Thoma, and Syrian churches are also much higher on ritual/etc. They split off even earlier.

This is true... Those Churches maintain some very early traditions, including the use of Coptic and Aramaic languages in their liturgies. For the most part though, their worship is the same as us Orthodox (we even have many people in our parish who come from the Coptic, Indian and Syriac traditions).

It might also interest you to know that their Churches might soon be reunited to the Orthodox Church. Orthodox Unity - Supporting the Joint Commission

 

[GQ Chris]

By the way, how did this thread go from 'How important is doctrine...', to bashing traditional Christians? Is this place turning into GT (General Theology forum)?

LOL! now when are the 5 point Calvinists going to get in on this Schism of ours, LOL j/k

 

[GQ Chris]

See what I think is cool about the Orthodox Faith is that they let their beards grow out like the Special Forces in the battle for Tora Bora. so cool

 

[Mikeb85]

LOL! now when are the 5 point Calvinists going to get in on this Schism of ours, LOL j/k

Now that you mention it, I haven't seen too many in the singles forums with Calvinist tags... Wonder why that is?