quote:

A Mormon or Jehovah's Witness could do these disciplines and not have a Biblical world view.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

A Mormon or Jehovah's Witness could do these disciplines and not have a Biblical world view.

Well, an unsaved person is by definition unsanctifed.

quote:

You obviously did not read the definition in Baker's dictionary.

quote:

For example, why can two Christians paractice these things, but one be an Armenian and the other a Lutheran, both with very different world views?

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
What single aspect of essential Christian doctrine is not shared by a Lutheran and a Wesleyan/Arminian which would lead them to "very different worldviews"? I don't see any.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

Do you know any essential Christian doctrine that is not mutually held by Lutherans and Arminians? I can't think of any!

quote:

At first glance, Lutheranism might appear to be an amalgamation of Calvinism and Arminianism because, with regard to the five points, it seems to agree with Calvinism on some points and Arminianism on others. We must be careful, however, to look at the underlying principles that motivated the positions. When we do this, we will find that Lutheranism is not in fundamental agreement with the Remonstrants on any of the five points.

quote:

It must be pointed out, however, that Methodists are not required to subscribe to these doctrinal standards, and that throughout their history deeds have been more important than creeds, and a holy life more than doctrine. This is the opposite of Lutheranism.

For Methodists tradition, experience, and reason “informs” their reading of the Biblical message. Though Lutherans also value and use Church Tradition, and view reason as a gift of God in interpreting the Biblical text, we would never say that tradition, experience, or reason are a “source” of doctrine that “informs” our understanding of the Bible. For us Scripture must interpret Scripture first, then tradition, reason, and experience can be brought as additional confirmation. The emphasis on experience as a source of doctrine, has made Methodism vulnerable to a crass subjectivism that often leads to serious departures from Biblical doctrine (e.g., the Holiness, Charismatic, and Pentecostal bodies, which originated from Methodism).

The Bible

The United Methodist Church teaches that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, the primary source and criterion for Christian doctrine, and that it contains all that is necessary for salvation. They do not believe the Bible to be inerrant or infallible, as do Missouri Synod Lutherans (See F. Belton Joyner Jr., Being Methodist in the Bible Belt (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 27.) As Lutherans do, Methodists emphasize a scholarly approach to the Scriptures.

Original Sin

Wesley taught that all human beings inherit Adam’s original sin and the corruption, and, as a result, they are “very far gone from original righteousness” (Articles of Religion, VII). This corruption or depravity is not total, according to Wesley. Wesley taught that, because of God’s prevenient grace, all people have freedom of the will to either choose Christ or reject him. Lutherans and Calvinists on the other hand, teach that as a result of original sin, all people have “lost” original righteousness, and that they are totally unable to contribute anything to their salvation. They do not have freedom of the will.

Salvation

Whereas in Lutheran theology the central doctrine and focus of all our worship and life is justification by grace through faith, for Methodists the central focus has always been holy living and the striving for perfection.

Note that Lutherans teach that neither prayer nor fasting nor abstinence is a means of grace. For us, a means of grace is an objective means through which God gives forgiveness and the strengthening of faith.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Regarding the biblical world view, weather we share that view depends on ones point of departure and what one considers essential doctrine. The phrase "essential Christian doctrine" is a case in point. To replace biblical world view with "essential Christian doctrine" presumes that those who choose to call themselves "Christian" have the only truly biblical world view. Therefore, I would prefer to use the bible to define the biblical world view than than use any particular school of doctrine.

quote:

Yes, I can just see Arminians calling for a state church!

quote:

I can see from the way that you word your posts that you and I have differing world views, yet we would both claim they are Biblical.

quote:

The fact that believers today do not kill over differences in doctrine tells us that our world view is different from the Christians of the Middle Ages, but are we not referring to the same Bible they had?

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Yes, I can just see Arminians calling for a state church!

Why do you say this when it was the Reformed Church that demanded to be the "official" state church for centuries in the Low Countries?

quote:

It seems to me, Doug, that you are confusing the term "worldview" with personal adherence to non-essential doctrine. Just as we need to carefully define sanctification, we must also carefully define worldview. Please share your understanding of this concept.

quote:

A person's world view will certainly be related to what they think is essential doctrine. But it will also be shaped by unessential doctrine as well as by totally secular influences.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
It seems to me that this understanding of "worldview" is so broadly generalized that it quickly deteriorates to relativistic individualism.

quote:

quote:

it quickly deteriorates to relativistic individualism.

That's what world view is.

quote:

So which believers have the absolutely true world view?

quote:

That is my problem with people equating the "christian" or "reform" worldview with the biblical world view. Even those who refer to themselves in such terms do not always agree on a world view.