How Important Is Docterine When Finding a Mate?

[CoachR64]

The other problem is that any denomination can claim their founder was a gift from God as well and their particular beliefs are infaliable... the mormons claim that with Joseph Smith.

And yes, Luther, that could happen exactly that way and I will give you the prime example: The apostle Paul.

Coach

 

[Llauralin]

Not at all llauralin. I simply believe the Bible is the true Word of God and that couple with the Holy Spirit Christ gave us is all we need.

Paul told us that some things will be sin and struggles for some, and not for others. If alcohol is a stumbling block for one person, then it would be sinful for them to endulge in it and let it become a master in their life. For others, a drink of wine with dinner would be perfectly fine.

The things non-essential to salvation in the Bible are simply ways for someone ro fellowship and relationship with Christ. Not all people are called to worship in the same way. Some are teachers, some are leaders, some are workers, some have the gift of song, others have the gift of counseling, etc....

I just think everyone's walk with Christ is their own personal journey and relationship and because it may not be the same as yours or mine does not make it wrong, heretical, stupid, etc....

There are two different things at issue in your statement: doctrine and praxis. Drinking or not drinking alcohol is a matter of praxis, not doctrine. At least it should be - I hope it is; it certainly is in my church. An example from my church is that it's praxis to not eat meat or dairy on Wednesdays and Fridays. A person can not do that and still be in communion. It's not meaningless, but it's also not doctrine - like abstaining from wine. However, belief that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ, in a real (not only symbolic) way is doctrine. A person could not believe something different and still be Orthodox. Another example of praxis is how to chant in church; someone can sing in four part harmony, or in Byzantine tones, or in Gregorian chant (though that's uncommon) and still be in communion. They cannot, however, refuse to believe that what we're chanting is true; that's a matter of doctrine. If somebody were to say that "One is holy, One is Lord, Jesus Christ; to the glory of God the Father, amen," for instance, is untrue, they would not be in communion. But could God still save a person who didn't believe those things? Absolutely!

 

[Llauralin]

And yes, Luther, that could happen exactly that way and I will give you the prime example: The apostle Paul.

So someone can be dropped on a deserted island without a Bible (well, the NT at least), and understand Christianity perfectly?

 

[CoachR64]

It happend with Paul. Who says God couldn't do it again if He so chose to do so?

Coach

 

[Luther073082]

And yes, Luther, that could happen exactly that way and I will give you the prime example: The apostle Paul.

Coach

Read Acts 9. Paul spends several days with the diciples before he even proclaims Christ once in the synagauges.

Do you think he was just lying around or do you think maybe, just maybe the diciples where giving him a crash course in Christianity?

On top of that you have to remember that Paul was a Jew beforehand. He had a very very VERY great understanding of the Old Testament. Throw in the lens of Christ and there is no way he would have to spend years in training.

Remember Paul like all the other apostles could both read and write in both hebrew and greek. Something only well educated pastors can do today.

 

[CoachR64]

Luther, Paul also tells us that he was unique in that all of his knowledge of Christ and Christianity was given to him directly from God, not from other teachings.

Coach

 

[Luther073082]

Luther, Paul also tells us that he was unique in that all of his knowledge of Christ and Christianity was given to him directly from God, not from other teachings.

Reference please

On top of that even if it did happen with Paul doesn't mean it happened with the rest of us. I had a very paul like expeirence in how I converted. But that doesn't mean I could just get it, nor did it mean I could just open up a bible and get it. I had to be taught and so did you.

So therefore teaching and doctrine are absolutly necessary in the church. Not just reading a bible.

Is that how they teach Sunday school in evangelical churchs. Hand the kids a bible and tell them to figure it out?

There are two different things at issue in your statement: doctrine and praxis. Drinking or not drinking alcohol is a matter of praxis, not doctrine. At least it should be - I hope it is; it certainly is in my church. An example from my church is that it's praxis to not eat meat or dairy on Wednesdays and Fridays. A person can not do that and still be in communion. It's not meaningless, but it's also not doctrine - like abstaining from wine. However, belief that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ, in a real (not only symbolic) way is doctrine. A person could not believe something different and still be Orthodox. Another example of praxis is how to chant in church; someone can sing in four part harmony, or in Byzantine tones, or in Gregorian chant (though that's uncommon) and still be in communion. They cannot, however, refuse to believe that what we're chanting is true; that's a matter of doctrine. If somebody were to say that "One is holy, One is Lord, Jesus Christ; to the glory of God the Father, amen," for instance, is untrue, they would not be in communion. But could God still save a person who didn't believe those things? Absolutely!

 

[CoachR64]

Luther, how is what you believe in regards to Luther any different than what Muslims believe in Mohammed? They believe he was a gift from God as well and the possessor of all truth for their religion as well.

How is it different than the Mormons belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet and gift from God baring truth?

What about those who follow Calvin?

That is the problem. You are putting the same faith in a doctrine of man that others are putting in the doctrines of man you are against. It is no different. I prefer to put my faith in trust in Christ and Christ alone.

Coach

 

[Blank123]

Coach do you mean that a person with no experience in Christianity could be dropped onto a deserted island with a bible. Read it on that island and understand it completly.

i know a guy who read through the Bible, refused to speak to Christians about what he was reading so as to avoid reading their thoughts/doctrines into Scripture and refused to read Christian books outside of Scripture for the same reason. That was enough to lead him to salvation. Why wouldn't the Bible alone be enough? The Holy Spirit is still able to enlighten anyone who is really searching for truth if all they have is the Bible, no?

 

[Mikeb85]

i know a guy who read through the Bible, refused to speak to Christians about what he was reading so as to avoid reading their thoughts/doctrines into Scripture and refused to read Christian books outside of Scripture for the same reason. That was enough to lead him to salvation. Why wouldn't the Bible alone be enough? The Holy Spirit is still able to enlighten anyone who is really searching for truth if all they have is the Bible, no?

When I was a kid I had read the Bible front to back half a dozen times, and used to read scripture EVERY SINGLE NIGHT. Yet I still became an athiest for 5+ years, and would quote scripture from memory to argue against missionaries and Christians... So in my experience, the Bible may be enough for some people, but for others, it's no more compelling than say, the Qu'ran or the Tao Te Ching...

 

[Blank123]

When I was a kid I had read the Bible front to back half a dozen times, and used to read scripture EVERY SINGLE NIGHT. Yet I still became an athiest for 5+ years, and would quote scripture from memory to argue against missionaries and Christians... So in my experience, the Bible may be enough for some people, but for others, it's no more compelling than say, the Qu'ran or the Tao Te Ching...

yet you became a Christian in the end, no? Surely you don't truly believe the Bible is just like any other book, if you hold to the doctrines of salvation found therein.

For someone who refuses to believe that the Bible is different from any other book there's no reason the Holy Spirit would push him or her into truth (although looking at Paul's example we can see that he *will* do that for some people). For those searching for the truth the doctrines within the Bible mean life. The Holy Spirit *will* honor that and enlighten. Look at Josiah's example. He did not know the Bible, yet when God's words were read to Him, the Holy Spirit convicted Him. The Bible was enough.

 

[GQ Chris]

dude... what is up with some people and denominationalism...

 

[Mikeb85]

yet you became a Christian in the end, no? Surely you don't truly believe the Bible is just like any other book, if you hold to the doctrines of salvation found therein.

I became a Christian because of the Church (the Orthodox Church). Reading the Bible myself, and knowing it so well is what caused me to leave Evangelical Christianity and become an athiest in the first place. I believe the Bible today because of the witness of the Church.

 

[Im_A]

I became a Christian because of the Church (the Orthodox Church). Reading the Bible myself, and knowing it so well is what caused me to leave Evangelical Christianity and become an athiest in the first place. I believe the Bible today because of the witness of the Church.

Great post Mike

 

[Blank123]

I became a Christian because of the Church (the Orthodox Church). Reading the Bible myself, and knowing it so well is what caused me to leave Evangelical Christianity and become an athiest in the first place. I believe the Bible today because of the witness of the Church.

so the all church doctrines are ultimately based on Scripture?

 

[Mikeb85]

so the all church doctrines are ultimately based on Scripture?

Yes. One thing to keep in mind though, the Church was founded by the apostles before the New Testament was even written down. Scripture is part of the tradition of the Church itself...

 

[Blank123]

Yes. One thing to keep in mind though, the Church was founded by the apostles before the New Testament was even written down. Scripture is part of the tradition of the Church itself...

so if the church is based on Scripture and points people to Scripture, why would Scripture not be enough for someone? Surely there must be something about that book if it was powerful enough to spawn the church you belong to (assuming the apostles did found it, remember what *they* studied) that you say gave you back your faith in God and it continues to point people back to the Bible. Can't be just another book out of many.

 

[Mikeb85]

so if the church is based on Scripture and points people to Scripture, why would Scripture not be enough for someone?

It depends on what you mean by 'enough'. There have been Saints who were 'saved' and were completely illiterate, and never read scripture... I'd venture to say prayer, faith, and giving up one's life for Christ are more important than 'knowing' scripture.

If scripture leads one to give up one's life for Christ, pray endlessly, and have faith, then yes, it's enough. If scripture doesn't lead to these things, then no, it's not enough.

Surely there must be something about that book if it was powerful enough to spawn the church you belong to (assuming the apostles did found it, remember what *they* studied) that you say gave you back your faith in God and it continues to point people back to the Bible.

Like I said, it was the Church that spawned the Bible, not the other way around. The Apostles founded the Church before they wrote the New Testament, and there was no official canon of scripture for 4 centuries...

Can't be just another book out of many.

Of course not. But the Bible, taken outside the context of the Church, can be misinterpreted, abused, etc... Why is there such division in protestant Christianity if they all believe in sola scriptura?

 

[lostaquarium]

Being in communion means being completely unified as a single ecclesia. If I go to a church that I'm in communion with (pretty much any Orthodox church) I can partake of their sacraments, and be a full member of their church without having to renounce any of the teachings of my former parish, or accept anything new that was not simply a matter of imperfect understanding on my part. When parishes within that communion have a substantial difference on matters of faith or praxis (Tradition, not tradition, which can differ), they break communion. Thus, the Orthodox and the Copts are not in communion, despite a number of things we hold in common, because we broks communion at the (IIRC) 4th Ecumenical Council, and have yet to reunite. That doesn't mean they're not Christian. It doesn't mean we believe they're wrong about everything, or most things, or that they're necessarily worse Christians. We can't even say with any certainty that their sacraments aren't true (they probably are) - it does mean that we have a barrier between our church and theirs that prevents full unity, and thus sharing sacraments in each other's churches.

Does that make sense?

No, I'm afraid, not at all :o I'm sorry.

It seems like you're describing a number of cliques, or clubs, or allegiances. Another allegiance might be "OK", but it's not our "custom" to talk to each other.

I'm sorry. To me, what you describe seems like a very man-made tradition. Almost like a historical feud, that none of the present-day members have reason to be part of. In the Bible, everyone who is saved is in communion with each other. There were no sub-groups among true believers.

The issue he has is that he does not want to take communion in a church that "eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner". Why is that an issue? See the Bible verse above.

Thanks Melissa, you've done an excellent job of explaining it I was previously confused because people were using the phrase "being in communion" to mean "being in unity with" in a rather abstract way, and I didn't know what it actually meant for everyday lives. What you're saying is, it would be wrong to take communion in a church of a different denomination, because taking communion is an act of identifying yourself with that particular church. (Whereas I'd say the act of taking communion is one of remembrance in my own heart, which can be done together with believers of all different sorts... but that's me )

*I'm sure some people on here would disagree because Kirk advocates his beliefs but you know what, it is no different than other people advocating their beliefs about other topics like premarital sex, homosexuality, etc. Just like you said earlier in your post, if you had a friend who was a homosexual you would try to explain to him what you think he's doing wrong. It is no different than that. And Kirk saying he believes 100% he is right about communion is no different than people saying they believe 100% they are right about premarital sex or homosexuality or whatever else.

I know And I actually really support Kirk's attitude. His advocation of his beliefs are a sign that he:
a) Really truly believes them, and
b) Cares for other people enough to try to convince them.
However I was merely questioning the basis for his beliefs

Atheists - let me change this to a muslim to make it easier to understand.

For a muslim, we would not let them say a prayer or pray with them in any way they belive in a different God. We certainly wouldn't give them communion.

Other Christians we would pray with but not commune with them. We would not let them preach in our church either.

Other Lutherans we would typically commune and pray. However there are excpetions. Non-confessional Lutheranism reaches such a broad amount of people. For example my church is technically non-confessional, yet in many confessional Lutheran churchs I'm allowed to commune, because after speaking with the pastor he belives that I am at one with him and the church on faith and doctrine.

However there are many far more liberal non-confessional Lutherans that the very same pastor might not commune.

Also there are some confessional Lutherans I would prefer not commune. (Although they wouldn't want to commune with us anyways.) A small few confessional Lutherans while they confess "One holy catholic and apostolic church" they do not practice it as they refuse to pray with other Christians. I reject divisions to such and extent because it in practice rejects the idea of one holy catholic and apostolic church"

Its impossible to know what everyone belives. However the church doctrine is clear. It is his sin if he communes and does not accept our doctrine that lying is not ok. However if we know he belives this we won't give him communion because it would be harmful to him.

Basic Lutheran doctrines should be learned in a catechism class of some sort before Lutherans are communed IMO. Some Lutherans might disagree with me on this. But in order to commune a person should have some training in what communion is, as well as the basic tenents of the Christian faith and the Lutheran tradition.

But see thats the difference, there are different levels of spiritual closeness. Communion litterally says that we are one together in this church. However said homosexual is to be loved and accepted as a child of God. BUT his doctrine is false and therefore he can not receive communion, because he is not at one with us in doctrine.

However if said homosexual realizes that homosexual activity is sin and agrees with us on all other major points of doctrine, he can receive communion with the rest of us. Because he is at one with us spritually in faith and doctrine.

God is offended by every sin hon. Just because we all sin and we do it a lot doesn't mean God isn't offended by it.

So we avoid sin as much as we can. We try to avoid lying or being angry with people. We keep a check on our temper. In just the same way we try to get doctrine right in every sense of the word.

Getting doctrine wrong is a sin, just like lying is a sin. Just because all of us have lied doesn't mean its totally cool to just accept false doctrines.

I dunno... I kind of get what you're saying. But it seems to me like a lot of man-made distinctions and customs. Levels of closeness, for example.

I guess, to condense what you say into a single sentence, would I be right in saying, "You'd only take communion with people who believe exactly the same things, even if they're not essential for salvation."?

So someone can be dropped on a deserted island without a Bible (well, the NT at least), and understand Christianity perfectly?

Yep, according to Romans We're supposed to be able to figure it out by looking at nature. But most of us can't do that, so the Bible is a huge help

 

[overit]

No, I'm afraid, not at all :o I'm sorry.

It seems like you're describing a number of cliques, or clubs, or allegiances. Another allegiance might be "OK", but it's not our "custom" to talk to each other.

I'm sorry. To me, what you describe seems like a very man-made tradition. Almost like a historical feud, that none of the present-day members have reason to be part of. In the Bible, everyone who is saved is in communion with each other. There were no sub-groups among true believers.


Thanks Melissa, you've done an excellent job of explaining it I was previously confused because people were using the phrase "being in communion" to mean "being in unity with" in a rather abstract way, and I didn't know what it actually meant for everyday lives. What you're saying is, it would be wrong to take communion in a church of a different denomination, because taking communion is an act of identifying yourself with that particular church. (Whereas I'd say the act of taking communion is one of remembrance in my own heart, which can be done together with believers of all different sorts... but that's me )


I know And I actually really support Kirk's attitude. His advocation of his beliefs are a sign that he:
a) Really truly believes them, and
b) Cares for other people enough to try to convince them.
However I was merely questioning the basis for his beliefs



I dunno... I kind of get what you're saying. But it seems to me like a lot of man-made distinctions and customs. Levels of closeness, for example.

I guess, to condense what you say into a single sentence, would I be right in saying, "You'd only take communion with people who believe exactly the same things, even if they're not essential for salvation."?


Yep, according to Romans We're supposed to be able to figure it out by looking at nature. But most of us can't do that, so the Bible is a huge help

Great post and ditto!