How Important Is Docterine When Finding a Mate?

[kevlite2020]

I suppose the thing that threw we off was saying that it "really doesn't matter." in your other post. I can understand saying that a person can be saved either way. But it does matter, as an issue of unity. If I believe that sacraments, especially Communion, are one of the major ways that God unites the Church, and someone isn't united in that way, it's a fairly significant thing. But I could see why from your perspective it wouldn't be.

Right, and I'm not trying to downplay the importance of it for someone else. For instance, I told this girl that if she wanted to go to church with me, we could go to a catholic church so she could continue to grow in those ways, because I'm all for growth of the body of Christ by whatever means. I don't personally feel convicted that that is something needed for growth, but I do think there are other things that are important.

For instance, if someone felt that reading the Bible daily wasn't all that important, I'd be okay with it, as long as they are okay with leaving me alone for some part of the day so I can read and study a bit myself, because that is important for me. And usually the end result of a relationship like that is the good habits start to rub off on each other and both end up growing more because of it. I'm just saying for a dating standpoint, all I care about is salvation, everything else is workable.

 

[Tink]

Right, and I'm not trying to downplay the importance of it for someone else. For instance, I told this girl that if she wanted to go to church with me, we could go to a catholic church so she could continue to grow in those ways, because I'm all for growth of the body of Christ by whatever means. I don't personally feel convicted that that is something needed for growth, but I do think there are other things that are important.

For instance, if someone felt that reading the Bible daily wasn't all that important, I'd be okay with it, as long as they are okay with leaving me alone for some part of the day so I can read and study a bit myself, because that is important for me. And usually the end result of a relationship like that is the good habits start to rub off on each other and both end up growing more because of it. I'm just saying for a dating standpoint, all I care about is salvation, everything else is workable.

Excellent post.

 

[welshman]

Docrtine is extremely important to me. I would find it almost impossible to have a peace when dating someone who believed in different doctrines to me. I am not saying that we have to agree 100% on every single verse of scripture e.g. was it an apple Eve ate or a pear? However, for the main doctrinal points in the Bible I would want to have agreement with my potential wife.

For example...I believe that you should read your Bible as much as possible and that only men should pastor a church. If I married someone who didn't feel it necessary to read her Bible more than once a week and thought it was okay for a woman to pastor a church, then who on earth are my children going to believe? Me? Or my wife?

A house that is divided cannot stand

 

[hikingchick77]

Docrtine is extremely important to me. I would find it almost impossible to have a peace when dating someone who believed in different doctrines to me. I am not saying that we have to agree 100% on every single verse of scripture e.g. was it an apple Eve ate or a pear? However, for the main doctrinal points in the Bible I would want to have agreement with my potential wife.

For example...I believe that you should read your Bible as much as possible and that only men should pastor a church. If I married someone who didn't feel it necessary to read her Bible more than once a week and thought it was okay for a woman to pastor a church, then who on earth are my children going to believe? Me? Or my wife?

A house that is divided cannot stand

I have to agree with that! I am not in agreement with the liberal, post-modern theologies of the day, such as women being priests or pastors, or homosexuals getting married. But, I am not going into it, because I will probably get a LOT of people irritated here!

 

[welshman]

True...ultimately, it would be wrong to try and force someone into believing in something they don't. Only God can change someones thinking.

One girlfriend I had thought it was fine to go out clubbing and partying until all hours of the night. I didn't. I gave her my opinion on it (when she asked for my advice) and left it upto God to convict her of what she should do. As it turns out she didn't want to give it up and so I decided to end the relationship. If someone believes in something different then that's okay.

However...I won't be in a relationship with someone who has different beliefs to me. I keep on thinking of that verse I quoted and see it as fundamental that my wife and I are as one when teaching our children what we think the Bible says.

I have to agree with that! I am not in agreement with the liberal, post-modern theologies of the day, such as women being priests or pastors, or homosexuals getting married. But, I am not going into it, because I will probably get a LOT of people irritated here!

 

[Sketcher]

If there was a major doctrinal gap, I probably wouldn't.

 

[Tamara224]

Doctrine is important to me. There are some "fundamentals" that effect how I view God, life, the Bible and everything and on those fundamentals I need to be in agreement with the person.

There are some minor issues that I really don't care if we agree on: for example, I believe in old earth creation but I wouldn't care if a guy was a young earth creationist (as long as he was equally non-dogmatic and didn't treat it like a salvation issue).

What is most important to me is a person's basic theological stance. Part of that includes a certain amount of humility - he needs to recognize that he could possibly be wrong on some things.

 

[Luther073082]

How important is doctrine when finding a mate? For instance, if someone attends a bible teaching church and someone is involved in the faith movement, would there be problems? Or would there be a comporize?

Blind post

No absolutly not.

The one thing I will NEVER EVER comprimise on is the Word of God.

I can't make someone belive in anything, however I wouldn't date someone who is not a Lutheran as I belive that the word of God is best understood through confessional Lutheran teachings and catechisms.

I have a 500 page book which completly covers all of Lutheran understanding of faith and defends it using documents that go back to the church's founding when it stood up for the word of God in opposition to the forces of the Roman Catholic Chruch.

In 500 or so pages, I can find one single phrase that I disagree with. I don't expect total doctrinal alignment. But there should be VERY VERY little difference within the family. The children can only be taught one doctrine.

I have to agree with that! I am not in agreement with the liberal, post-modern theologies of the day, such as women being priests or pastors, or homosexuals getting married. But, I am not going into it, because I will probably get a LOT of people irritated here!

Yes and I may be leaving my current church soon for a different Lutheran church body very soon because of this. I've gotten more conservative and more confessional in my understanding of the Christian faith and Lutheran confessions. While the ELCA has gotten far more liberal.

 

[lostaquarium]

If he believes the Bible is the word of God, and faithfully tries to interpret it correctly, then that's good enough. I don't understand the antagonism between denominations. If you've committed your life to Christ, then the rest is a matter of learning. All the doctrines I believe come from the Bible, and if someone shows that my belief is not biblical, then I'd stop believing it. e.g. I used to think homosexuality was OK, but someone showed me the Bible verses, and now I realise it's not OK.

But, if the man doesn't trust in the Bible's 100% reliability, if he picks and chooses what parts to believe, then there would be a problem.

 

[Niels]

Some doctrinal differences seem almost petty to me (such as what day of the week the sabbath falls on), whereas I think other doctrinal differences (perhaps disagreements about whether or not Jesus is God) are profound.

 

[kevlite2020]

Just on a side rant, I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this or not so sorry if I totally derail, but it really is sad to me how some denominations close off from each other. There are many Christians out there with different theologic ideas but the same basic foundational belief of Christ and salvation. When these denominations shut each other out, they really shut out Christ from their church and that kills me.

To give an example, when I was getting baptized, my friend's mom was going to find a priest/pastor to baptize me. She went to a few churches around her that she knew, and all of them said that if they would baptize me, I had to attend classes with them and commit to their specific denomination. In other words, if it was a catholic church, I couldn't be baptized until I was catholic (having Christ was not enough). It took me awhile to eventually find a pastor who was happy enough that I had Christ. It's sad though how religiously exclusive we tend to get, as ultimately Christ is the one who gets shut out.

 

[Irrkunst]

I have to agree with that! I am not in agreement with the liberal, post-modern theologies of the day, such as women being priests or pastors, or homosexuals getting married. But, I am not going into it, because I will probably get a LOT of people irritated here!

I like cheese.

 

[Llauralin]

Just on a side rant, I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this or not so sorry if I totally derail, but it really is sad to me how some denominations close off from each other. There are many Christians out there with different theologic ideas but the same basic foundational belief of Christ and salvation. When these denominations shut each other out, they really shut out Christ from their church and that kills me.

To give an example, when I was getting baptized, my friend's mom was going to find a priest/pastor to baptize me. She went to a few churches around her that she knew, and all of them said that if they would baptize me, I had to attend classes with them and commit to their specific denomination. In other words, if it was a catholic church, I couldn't be baptized until I was catholic (having Christ was not enough). It took me awhile to eventually find a pastor who was happy enough that I had Christ. It's sad though how religiously exclusive we tend to get, as ultimately Christ is the one who gets shut out.

Pastors generally do not wantto encourage people to be "free agent Christians," as it were. It's rather like having a child, and then abandoning it on a hillside. That's not a responsible thing to do. Newly baptized are considered "baby Christians," in need of a home. The official representative of that "home" is the appropriate person to do the baptizing.

During the persecutions it was fairly apparent that people were serious: they could be killed for professing their faith. At other times, however, things became more confused; people would want to be baptized who didn't understand what they were getting themselves into. So the Church instituted a catechuminate, lasting one to ten years, and would baptize on Easter. Lent was originally a preparation for Baptism.

That wasn't as clear as it should be, but the point is this: if Baptism is a real thing, if we really believe in "one baptism for the remission of sins," then not baptizing a person who either refuses important beliefs, or refuses to listen to instruction is highly reasonable.

To get back on topic: you'll find the same thing to be true regarding marriage: many priests and pastors will not marry a couple, a) without being a member of their congragation, and b) without a certain amount of pre-marital counseling, to see if there's a high likelyhood of success for the marriage. That's also just being responsible.

 

[kevlite2020]

Pastors generally do not wantto encourage people to be "free agent Christians," as it were. It's rather like having a child, and then abandoning it on a hillside. That's not a responsible thing to do. Newly baptized are considered "baby Christians," in need of a home. The official representative of that "home" is the appropriate person to do the baptizing.

During the persecutions it was fairly apparent that people were serious: they could be killed for professing their faith. At other times, however, things became more confused; people would want to be baptized who didn't understand what they were getting themselves into. So the Church instituted a catechuminate, lasting one to ten years, and would baptize on Easter. Lent was originally a preparation for Baptism.

That wasn't as clear as it should be, but the point is this: if Baptism is a real thing, if we really believe in "one baptism for the remission of sins," then not baptizing a person who either refuses important beliefs, or refuses to listen to instruction is highly reasonable.

To get back on topic: you'll find the same thing to be true regarding marriage: many priests and pastors will not marry a couple, a) without being a member of their congragation, and b) without a certain amount of pre-marital counseling, to see if there's a high likelyhood of success for the marriage. That's also just being responsible.

I guess I can understand the classes from that perspective. But I still think it is flat out wrong that they wanted me to commit to their specific denominations before they would baptize me. There's nothing suggested in the Bible that all catholics get salvation and all protestants don't, or vice versa. Different denominations within Christianity are still Christian, and I don't like the idea that a priest wanted to force me into being part of their denomination before he will help me. Priests, as far as I understand it, are called by God to serve His people, not called by their denominational church to only serve those within that specific church.

 

[Llauralin]

I guess I can understand the classes from that perspective. But I still think it is flat out wrong that they wanted me to commit to their specific denominations before they would baptize me. There's nothing suggested in the Bible that all catholics get salvation and all protestants don't, or vice versa. Different denominations within Christianity are still Christian, and I don't like the idea that a priest wanted to force me into being part of their denomination before he will help me. Priests, as far as I understand it, are called by God to serve His people, not called by their denominational church to only serve those within that specific church.

Catholicism is something of a special case...

It's not just about salvation. It's more about not administering sacraments to people who might be hurt by them. Remember the verse about people eating and drinking condemnation on themselves? Catholics take that to apply to all the sacraments: that they can actually hurt people who are not within the Church in a certain way. Good priests are certainly willing to help anyone in need of it. It's just that what you consider help, and what they consider to be such may sometimes differ. He would probably think it helpful to instruct you in the faith before proceeding further. There's also an issue of church structure involved...

The Catholic Church is not a denomination. It's something else - usually called a church. If you believe them, it's the Church. The way it works is, in the beginning there was just the Church. Then some heresies popped up, like Jesus is not God, or Jesus is not human, or things like that. Then there was the Church and the heretics. At the Fourth Ecumenical Council the Copts disagreed, and then there was the Church, the heretics, and the Coptic schismatics - because their disagreement was major enough to be a big deal, but not major enough that they had a completely different understanding of God). Then some centuries went by, and other things happened, and then the Catholics and Orthodox bishops excommunicated each other. Literally, that means they're not in communion - that is, they cannot receive sacraments from each other's church, specifically Communion. So then there were the Catholic Church of the West, the Orthodox Church of the East, the Copts of North Africa, and (presumably) some heretics. Who were the schismatics is up for debate; I'm obviously biased . Another five centuries went along; the Reformation happened. There were then the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church, and the Protestant movement, which quickly became the Protestant denominations. Of these four groups, none of them are in communion with each other (to additionally complicate matters, not all Orthodox groups are always in communion with each other either, but I digress). Protestant denominations are usually in communion with each other by virtue of not believing it possible for a Christian to be harmed by things like receiving communion out of a state of grace. To participate in sacraments in a church one is not in communion with, it's necessary to become a member of that church.

Sorry if that was somewhat garbled...:o

 

[kevlite2020]

That's not garbled, I'm following you. It just seems like an issue of baptism would be one where any priest would be willing to administer to a random joe, I don't see how it relates to commitment to a certain denomination. And also note, this wasn't just about the catholic church, from what I was told by my friends mother, she went to several different denominations and got the same response. I ended up getting baptized by I think it was a pentecostal church, either that or non-denominational. One of the most moving experiences of my life

 

[lostaquarium]

To be baptised at my church, you'd be required to:
a) Be a regular member, and
b) Attend baptism classes.
Like Llauralin said, it's out of responsibility. They want to make sure you're comfortably settled within a Christian family, and that you understand what baptism represents.

It's not a law set in stone, and it's definitely not due to any sense of "possessiveness". E.g. once, a nearby church (which our pastor knew well) had a member who was ready to be baptised, but because of scheduling conflicts her own church couldn't do it. So she was baptised at our church, without having membership or classes with us. And that was fine.

 

[kevlite2020]

To be baptised at my church, you'd be required to:
a) Be a regular member, and
b) Attend baptism classes.
Like Llauralin said, it's out of responsibility. They want to make sure you're comfortably settled within a Christian family, and that you understand what baptism represents.

It's not a law set in stone, and it's definitely not due to any sense of "possessiveness". E.g. once, a nearby church (which our pastor knew well) had a member who was ready to be baptised, but because of scheduling conflicts her own church couldn't do it. So she was baptised at our church, without having membership or classes with us. And that was fine.

The thing that got me was that I didn't live where I got baptized. I live out in dayton and I got baptized in cleveland (so I could do it with my friend and his whole family there, to support me). they still insisted I'd have to take classes and commit to their church, or at least their denomination, even knowing that I couldn't possibly do that since I lived 4 hours away. I mean it's not a big deal now, I got it done and I'm very happy for it, I was just irked that so many churches were making it that difficult on me. I wouldn't have minded sitting down with a priest and talking about why I want to get baptized, what the significance of it is, ect. But I physically couldn't have taken classes there.

 

[Luther073082]

To be baptised at my church, you'd be required to:
a) Be a regular member, and
b) Attend baptism classes.
Like Llauralin said, it's out of responsibility. They want to make sure you're comfortably settled within a Christian family, and that you understand what baptism represents.

It's not a law set in stone, and it's definitely not due to any sense of "possessiveness". E.g. once, a nearby church (which our pastor knew well) had a member who was ready to be baptised, but because of scheduling conflicts her own church couldn't do it. So she was baptised at our church, without having membership or classes with us. And that was fine.

But see thats the problem right there. In my church we baptize infants, and I believe that is what the bible instructs us to do. Thats because I have a completly different understanding of what baptism is and what it means from you.

I would not marry any woman who wouldn't have her child baptised as an infant. I would not regularly attend any church that does not baptise infants.

Protestant denominations are usually in communion with each other by virtue of not believing it possible for a Christian to be harmed by things like receiving communion out of a state of grace. To participate in sacraments in a church one is not in communion with, it's necessary to become a member of that church.

One of the reasons I take so much flack is I'm a protestant that asserts that I am NOT in communion with other protestant denominations, or the orthodox church, or the Roman Catholic church.

So its not all protestants. But, the majority of them are like that.

 

[lostaquarium]

But see thats the problem right there. In my church we baptize infants, and I believe that is what the bible instructs us to do. Thats because I have a completly different understanding of what baptism is and what it means from you.

OK, that would be another good reason why churches might not baptise a non-member i.e. it's a question of belief and responsibility, not merely an antagonism/exclusivity between denominations.