Lutherans Latest to Reject New NIV Bible Over Gender Language
The updated NIV Bible has gained another critic: the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. In a recent report, a panel of Lutherans cautioned against use of the new NIV over gender-related issues.
"The use of inclusive language in NIV 2011 creates the potential for minimizing the particularity of biblical revelation and, more seriously, at times undermines the saving revelation of Christ as the promised Savior of humankind," the Commission on Theology and Church Relations Executive Staff stated in an August report.
"Pastors and congregations of the LCMS should be aware of this serious weakness. In our judgment this makes it inappropriate for NIV 2011 to be used as a lectionary Bible or as a Bible to be generally recommended to the laity of our church."...
Ah, John Y., if you just acted like Zorro (the masked avenger) on Roman Catholic boards and not place heretical nonsense on this one. Doctrinal Smorgasbord? any dedicated priest (q.v., The Scandal of the Catholic Priesthood ) would quickly point out the errors of your ways.
John Yurich USA wrote: No I didn't state that the Lutheran doctrine of Holy Communion is the same as the Catholic doctrine of Holy Communion. I stated that Luther's doctrine of Holy Communion is scriptural and that I accept the Lutheran doctrine of Holy Communion. The Lutheran doctrine of Holy Communion states that Jesus is present in, with and under the elements of bread and wine but the bread and wine remain bread and wine and do not become the literal Body and Blood of Jesus.
During the reign of (Roman Catholic) Queen Mary in the UK, that would have been enough to have had you burnt at the stake by the Roman Catholic authorities, John. And don't forget that they have never repented of such wickedness.
Jim Lincoln wrote: John Y., didn't you make a comment to a pastor you liked his sermon because of Luther's sacrament of Communion was the same as the Catholics?
No I didn't state that the Lutheran doctrine of Holy Communion is the same as the Catholic doctrine of Holy Communion. I stated that Luther's doctrine of Holy Communion is scriptural and that I accept the Lutheran doctrine of Holy Communion. The Lutheran doctrine of Holy Communion states that Jesus is present in, with and under the elements of bread and wine but the bread and wine remain bread and wine and do not become the literal Body and Blood of Jesus.
John Y., didn't you make a comment to a pastor you liked his sermon because of Luther's sacrament of Communion was the same as the Catholics? Of course it isn't. It isn't the standard one as being symbolic though. The Intention for the Bread & the Cup is different for most Protestants as compared to Lutheran idea.
Mike wrote: Since he came up with it. No, the Holy Spirit didn't guide him in this. Do you think all believers are correct about everything? I know, you're comfortable with it, and that is all that matters.
Everybody who is Born Again is guided by the Holy Spirit. And yes I think all believers are correct about everything. What is so unscriptural about the Lutheran doctrine of Holy Communion? The Lutheran doctrine of Holy Communion is 100% different than the Catholic doctrine of Holy Communion. The Lutheran doctrine of Holy Communion does not state that the bread and wine are the literal Body and Blood of Jesus.
From Luther's Small and Large Catechisms: What is the Sacrament of The Altar? It is the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ Himself for us Christians to eat and drink.
Notice it does not state like the Catholic Church states that the bread and wine are the literal Body and Blood of Jesus. And thus the Lutheran doctrine of Holy Communion is scriptural.
John Yurich USA wrote: I reject the Catholic doctrine of Holy Communion. But I accept the Lutheran doctrine of Holy Communion. But since when is Luther's doctrine of Holy Communion unscriptural? Luther was Born Again and thus being guided by the Holy Spirit. ---
Since he came up with it. No, the Holy Spirit didn't guide him in this. Do you think all believers are correct about everything? I know, you're comfortable with it, and that is all that matters.
Mike wrote: I thought you rejected the unscriptural things, John.
I reject the Catholic doctrine of Holy Communion. But I accept the Lutheran doctrine of Holy Communion. But since when is Luther's doctrine of Holy Communion unscriptural? Luther was Born Again and thus being guided by the Holy Spirit. So any doctrine that Luther had was guided by the Holy Spirit. Luther retained in the Lutheran Church the Mass minus the unscriptural parts. Luther also retained in the Lutheran Church the practice of making the Sign of the Holy Cross(exact wording from Luther's Small and Large Catechisms).
Mike wrote: Thanks for the concern, bro. Appreciate it. We're only on the path because of its size. The folks on the coast have more problems. Here we're expecting 1-2 inches of rain tonight with wind gusts up to 60mph. We are kind of prepared, have plenty of food, water in case the power leaves. And a propane camp stove for cooking if necessary.
Ah, the memories of camping eh? Happy days. Good to hear you will be all right. The news over here has hundreds of thousands evacuated from Manhattan and New York like a ghost town. The worst storm in decades, apparently. Or maybe just a good news story. Time will tell.
John UK wrote: Say Mike, you on the flight path of ye olde Sandy? How are you fixed? Just brotherly concern. Oh, you too Christopher.
Thanks for the concern, bro. Appreciate it. We're only on the path because of its size. The folks on the coast have more problems. Here we're expecting 1-2 inches of rain tonight with wind gusts up to 60mph. We are kind of prepared, have plenty of food, water in case the power leaves. And a propane camp stove for cooking if necessary.
John Yurich USA wrote: From Luther's Small and Large Catechisms: What Is The Sacrament of The Altar? It is the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ Himself for us Christians to eat and drink. That is the doctrine of Holy Communion that I accept. When I receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church I make believe that I am receiving the bread and wine in the manner that the Lutheran Church teaches.
I thought you rejected the unscriptural things, John.
From Luther's Small and Large Catechisms: What Is The Sacrament of The Altar? It is the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ Himself for us Christians to eat and drink.
That is the doctrine of Holy Communion that I accept. When I receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church I make believe that I am receiving the bread and wine in the manner that the Lutheran Church teaches.
Jim Lincoln wrote: John U.K., what have I always said?
It's what you don't say that concerns me. How come you never make a mention of the Bible in question? In this thread it is concerning the new, whiter than white, right up to date, most excellent revision of the most excellent revision of the most excellent NIV, which many pastors, teachers and seminaries have fallen under the spell of.
What went wrong, Jim?
I tell you. Nothing went wrong. This is all part of the plan. Keep changing a little here, a little there, remove a word, remove a phrase, remove an entire verse, remove several verses, add verses and extra-biblical books, like you find in the Sinaiticus.
Sure, keep a look out for "The Shepherd of Hermas", coming in a Bible near you. Maybe not so very far away now.
You think the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus mss are valid? These texts from which modern versions have sprung up? Then put up with the consequences and expect huge changes to the modern Bible. While most thinking Christians will say "ENOUGH"!!!! And, "Let us return from whence we came, and embrace again the stability and surety of the King James Bible.
Jim Lincoln wrote: a] The NIV 1984 version or earlier! which of course is much superior to AV.
b] Older doesn't mean better and in the AV's case, much worse than many modern versions!
a] Good joke Jim.
b] Age is not the problem Jim. Its more that most intellegent Christians recognise that a version such as NIV/NASB etc which required the input of Liberal Anglican heresy and popish doctrine sympathies are not God's Holy Word, nor obviously, the Bible most accurate available.
Now the KING JAMES VERSION OF the Word of God is proven by GOD Himself over four hundred years of use and did not use a couple of heretics in its production like your modern versions did.
I pray that the Lord will lead you to His Holy Bible KJV.
"Matthew 13:51 KJV "Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto Him, Yea, Lord."
NASB ""Have you understood all these things?" They said to Him, "Yes.""
NASB leaves out 'Jesus saith unto them' and 'Lord.' This is trying to do away with the divinity of Jesus and His Lordship."
Question is of course WHY does the NASB change the Bible at this verse? - Why did the NASB editors change anything in Scripture?
John U.K., what have I always said? (Hopefully always unless I inadvertently forgot!) The NIV 1984 version or earlier! which of course is much superior to AV.
Christopher Pope wrote: Translations Not Recommended
Advances in understanding the text of the New Testament, as well as changes in the English language, have made the Geneva Bible (GEN), King James Version (KJV), and Young's Literal Translation far obsolete. Their rating is lower for the fact that, while the most formally literal, none of them pay enough attention to the nuances of grammar and syntax. The KJV would have done better if it had kept to Tyndale's simple style instead of the elevated language that soon became outdated. The 21st Century King James Version (KJ21) might have outdone the NKJV if it had been more consistent in updating the KJV's archaisms and correcting more obvious errors such as Easter in Acts 12:4....
Drs. Ankerberg & Weldon wrote: In fact, if one uses the same logic as the KJVO proponents, and cites selected passages which seem to teach salvation by works, one could even argue that it is the KJV itself which distorts the doctrine of salvation. Remember that the KJV has been the favorite Bible of new religions and cults, like Mormonism, that promote salvation by works. Why? Because in many places the KJV verses are less clear than the reliable modern versions.
Pastor Greg Locke | 6/26/2008
COMMENTS | 
We're only on the path because of its size. The folks on the coast have more problems. Here we're expecting 1-2 inches of rain tonight with wind gusts up to 60mph. We are kind of prepared, have plenty of food, water in case the power leaves. And a propane camp stove for cooking if necessary.
