best books and movies

[reda]

Hey everyone, what's the best books by Lutheran authors or Christian authors you have read? Also what's the best movies you watched that you really enjoyed. I love to read when I do get a chance so I was just wondering.

[Edial]

Hey everyone, what's the best books by Lutheran authors or Christian authors you have read? Also what's the best movies you watched that you really enjoyed. I love to read when I do get a chance so I was just wondering.
The movie "Martin Luther", the new version, made a strong impression on me.
I saw it when I just became a Lutheran.

I was already predisposed to Lutheranism, and this movie confirmed it in my heart.

Thanks, :)
Ed

[synger]

We had a long thread about books (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7045782) just a few months ago. Take a look at it and see if it's helpful.

[Tetzel]

Might I suggest this text from the late 16th century.

http://lettersfromthedustbowl.com/Fbk1.html

[reda]

Might I suggest this text from the late 16th century.




very interesting story! good read. thanks.

[reda]

I didn't realize there was already a post on this subject. I'm going to check it out. Thanks.

[RadMan]

Hey everyone, what's the best books by Lutheran authors or Christian authors you have read? Also what's the best movies you watched that you really enjoyed. I love to read when I do get a chance so I was just wondering.The link in our "sticky" area can also be a source of info to.
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=670797

[DominusIesus]

Whilst he is not a Lutheran (He's Bishop of Durham in the UK) the books by N. T. Wright are pretty good.

[RadMan]

One thing that conservative/confessional Lutheran try to do is read what our own authors and church fathers write about Lutheranism. The reason is that some authors that aren't Lutheran might write about theology but only in their perspective. It's not that we don't want to read them it's that it's sooooo easy for an outside author to slip in his perspective among all the somewhat correct doctrine. It's easy to lead someone astray so we tend to stay with our own. We even have trouble with some of our own authors so we even have to be on our toes with them.

This is prevalent in not only our denom but also in the RCC and EO. We are not either one of those groups but we know that is the stability of our theology. Unfortunately that is why there are soo many other denoms because a person comes along and, because of his interpretation, they start a new religion.

It sounds narrow minded but it really isn't. The BOC is less of an interpretation but more of a literal concept of the Bible (IN CONTEXT) with much less human fallacy involved.

Our failsafe is the Bible and the Book of Concord. If we read those initially then who ever else we read we gauge what they say according to the bible and the BOC.

[DominusIesus]

Our failsafe is the Bible and the Book of Concord.

The problem arises when you realise that the BOC is an historically conditioned interpretation of the Scripture. A lot of what it says is good, some of it is outdated.

[RadMan]

The problem arises when you realise that the BOC is an historically conditioned interpretation of the Scripture. A lot of what it says is good, some of it is outdated.As I said. Its a guideline but, like the Bible, is relevant for all times and is not outdated.

[DominusIesus]

As I said. Its a guideline but, like the Bible, is relevant for all times and is not outdated.

The Book of Concord was published in 1580, we now live in 2008. In these 428 years we know far more than they did then about many issues to do with exegesis and hermenutics. The doctrine of justification they articulate is very minimalistic as those who wrote it lacked the understanding we have know. Hence you should read the articles on "Justification" and "Righteousness" in the New Dictionary of Theology.

Furthermore, they do not provide a biblical theology as they were not aware of the second-exodus motif going on in Gospels and Acts. Modern evangelical scholarship can help us have a far more robust and enlivened theology of hope.

[DaRev]

The Book of Concord was published in 1580, we now live in 2008. In these 428 years we know far more than they did then about many issues to do with exegesis and hermenutics. The doctrine of justification they articulate is very minimalistic as those who wrote it lacked the understanding we have know. Hence you should read the articles on "Justification" and "Righteousness" in the New Dictionary of Theology.

Furthermore, they do not provide a biblical theology as they were not aware of the second-exodus motif going on in Gospels and Acts. Modern evangelical scholarship can help us have a far more robust and enlivened theology of hope.

You obviously aren't Lutheran.

Many make the same arguments about the Bible, written between 2000 and 4000 years ago. What possible relvancy could it have today? :doh:

The Book of Concord is thoroughly Biblical and is a true exposition of Scripture. While it isn't exhaustive, it certainly is indeed relevant to the Church today in terms of doctrine and practice.

[RadMan]

The Book of Concord was published in 1580, we now live in 2008. In these 428 years we know far more than they did then about many issues to do with exegesis and hermenutics. The doctrine of justification they articulate is very minimalistic as those who wrote it lacked the understanding we have know. Hence you should read the articles on "Justification" and "Righteousness" in the New Dictionary of Theology.

Furthermore, they do not provide a biblical theology as they were not aware of the second-exodus motif going on in Gospels and Acts. Modern evangelical scholarship can help us have a far more robust and enlivened theology of hope.Most Conservative/confessional Lutherans aren't too concerned about being "relevant" in todays society and not concerned about "modern evangelical scholarship" and "enlivened theology". Luther and Walther are sufficient expositories on Justification with the BOC support.

We're not too worried that you think the BOC is "dated". Even though your "New THeology..." has many contributors it also seems to be Anglican in tone.

[DominusIesus]

Many make the same arguments about the Bible, written between 2000 and 4000 years ago. What possible relvancy could it have today?

The Scriptures were written by the Spirit of God however the Book of Concord was written by men and their culturally conditioned exegetical methods. The Book of Concord, whilst containing a great deal of truth, is nvertheless an historic document.

The Book of Concord is thoroughly Biblical and is a true exposition of Scripture.

Where does the Book of Concord say that? Where does the the Book of Concord deal with its doctrine of Scripture?

[DominusIesus]

Luther and Walther are sufficient expositories on Justification with the BOC support.

Let's go through a mini exercise; Perhaps you could explain what Justification is?

[DaRev]

We're not too worried that you think the BOC is "dated". Even though your "New THeology..." has many contributors it also seems to be Anglican in tone.

The NDT is very Reformed in it's content which makes it suspect already. Lutherans would certainly not hold it equal to (let alone above) the BoC since it's theology contracicts Scripture in many ways.

[RadMan]

The Scriptures were written by the Spirit of God however the Book of Concord was written by men and their culturally conditioned exegetical methods. The Book of Concord, whilst containing a great deal of truth, is nvertheless an historic document.



Where does the Book of Concord say that? Where does the the Book of Concord deal with its doctrine of Scripture?Oh so you have no interpretive support for other sources other than the Bible? I don't believe that for a minute. You've already supplied us with numerous man made interpretations and books. Anyone that comes in here and says that they totally rely on the Holy Spirit and doesn't rely on outside info is suspect.

[DominusIesus]

Oh so you have no interpretive support for other sources other than the Bible?

Please be careful not to put words into my mouth.

As a good Anglican I affirm the Thirty-Nine Articles including Article 8 which reads, "The three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius' Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed; for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture."

I also affirm Article 6 which reads, "Holy Scriptures containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation."

I also agree with Article 20 which reads, "The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God's word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ: yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation."

But I also agree with Article 21 which reads, "General Councils...when they be gathered together, forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and word of God, they may err and sometime have erred, even in things pertaining to God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture."

It was Richard Hooker, a good Anglican, who decried those men who go into their closet with their Bible in hand and no matter what what nonsense they come up with they claim that the Spirit taught it them. Jesus gave gifts to his Church as we read in Ephesians 4:11-13, "It was he [Christ] who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ."

Confessions, Catechisms and Creeds are essential however we need to approach them both respecting the learning of those who crafted them as well as recognising that they are not beyond error. The final authority is not the Book of Concord nor is it the Thirty-Nine Articles but rather Scripture.

On that I am sure we agree.

[DominusIesus]

You've already supplied us with numerous man made interpretations and books.

Bearing in mind what I have just said let's proceed. I quoted Ephesians 4:11-13, "It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ."

Christ still gives us these gifts although now only the office of pastor-teachers is for today. These presbyters / overseers are to keep in mind the instruction St. Paul gave to Timothy, "the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others" (2 Timothy 2:2).

In my mind, Bishop Wright is one of these men which Christ has given to the Church (not just the Anglican denomination) and who is a a New Testament scholar and theologian who has taught New Testatment Studies at both Oxford University and Cambridge University. To my mind, ignoring what he has written because he is not a Lutheran is daft. His teaching regarding the message of St. Paul in the epistle of Romans is refreshing. Below is a summary of his commentary. You can ignore it, or you can learn from it. The choice is yours, plain and simple. I, for one, would commend that you take some time, read it, enjoy it and learn from it. :)

Chapters 1-4
The first four chapters of Romans give an explanation of how, in the gospel of Jesus the Messiah, God’s righteousness (his consistency with his own justice and his faithfulness to his covenant) is revealed. Generic human, and pagan, and Jewish unrighteousness is exposed, God’s judgment described, and the helplessness and guilt of fallen humanity declared. God’s action in and through Jesus (in particular, through the faithfulness of Jesus as true Israel who rendered ultimate Obedience in his atoning-death) enables him to keep his promise to Abraham and thus, at one and the same time be consistent with his own justice and faithful to his covenant. Thus God brings into being a single Jew-Gentile family, a renewed covenant people, and these people are declared to be right with God not on the basis of human endeavour, Jewish privilege, or “works-of-torah” but purely through faith in Jesus. And looking back, this is seen to be God’s intention all along as revealed in his covenant with Abraham and Abraham’s own prefiguring of restored humanity.

Chapters 5-8
Chapters five to eight further explain God’s gospel accomplishment and revelation already described in the first four chapters. Showing that God’s people in Christ is the true humanity, these chapters set out the achievement of Jesus in such a way as implants in the worldview of the Gentile church the scriptural narrative through which they may discover their own place on the map of God’s purpose. God’s renewed covenant people is a Christ-people and no longer an Adam-people. These people, through Jesus’s messianic atoning death and the work of the Spirit have experienced a new exodus, have become the true torah-keepers (God’s redemptive-historical use of torah and the relationship of Adamic Israel to torah are explained along the way), and are now being led through the wilderness to the glory inheritance which is not just for them but for the whole cosmos. Salvation is assured.

Chapters 9-11
This, of course, raises (again) the question of Israel, the called and privileged people of God, the chosen instrument by which he intended to keep his promise to Abraham and thus restore the world. If God has accomplished the true exodus in the work of Jesus and the Spirit, what about the people of the original exodus? How can the gospel be a revelation of God’s faithfulness and justice if Israel is left out or rejected? Chapters nine to eleven address these questions, first demonstrating, by a retelling of the Israel story from Abraham through to Paul’s day, that God was sovereign in and through the hardness of heart and the misdirected zeal of Israel, using them to bring about his purpose which was a renewed covenant and a deeper and truer way of keeping torah. This deeper way of keeping torah, namely, obedient trust in and loyalty to Jesus was, of course, open to Jews and Gentiles alike. But just as, mysteriously, Messiah was rejected and then raised, so Paul is confident that Israel’s rejection will be matched and followed by resurrection as, over time, many (though not all) Jews come, by faith in Jesus, to be part of the true Israel reconfigured and redefined in Jesus.

Chapters 12-16
The last section of the letter, chapters twelve to sixteen, brings the announcement of the gospel and the exposition of redemptive history contained in the preceding eleven chapters down into the lives of the mainly Gentile congregations of Christians in Rome. Living as the people of the renewed covenant will means worship, holiness, and unity, looking back to what God has done and forward to his worldwide purposes for the future. Christians learn to relate to each other and to outsiders in the light of the gospel and this means mutual love, as well as challenge to and gratitude for the civil authorities. In particular, justification on the basis of faith alone requires fellowship on the basis of faith alone – matters which previously divided Jews and Gentiles must do so no longer. God’s purpose of a worldwide people united in praise under Messiah’s rule is to be worked out in little congregations in Rome and, through Paul’s mission, far further afield too. Even the paragraphs of personal greetings illustrate and reinforce the Christian unity of God’s renewed covenant people.

[DaRev]

Rad, don't feed the Troll.

[RadMan]

Rad, don't feed the Troll.LOL :)
Yea maybe we can "sic" LM on him. That would be a show.

[RadMan]

I'm beginning to wonder if this is Lutheran forum or a general forum.

[DaRev]

When are the faith icons coming back?

[DaRev]

I don't want to get sucked into this debate but the articles can be found online:

The "Justification" article seems to make the classic Roman Catholic mistake of confusing justification with sanctification.

[LutheranMafia]

LOL :)
Yea maybe we can "sic" LM on him. That would be a show.Only if I can figure out what the argument is about! :confused: I know that Luther believed in justification by faith, but I'm not entirely clear where sanctification fits in. I vaguely remember the word being used in Church, but I can't remember the context. I found something on it that seems like it might be quite good: http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/792, but I can't say that I understand it.

I understand the objections even more poorly. So all I can do at the moment is tell a joke: In the Lutheran Mafia, we don't give you an offer you can't refuse, we give you an offer that you can't understand!

[seajoy]

I'm beginning to wonder if this is Lutheran forum or a general forum.
amen

[seajoy]

When are the faith icons coming back?
and amen!

[RadMan]

Only if I can figure out what the argument is about! :confused: I know that Luther believed in justification by faith, but I'm not entirely clear where sanctification fits in. I vaguely remember the word being used in Church, but I can't remember the context. I found something on it that seems like it might be quite good: http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/792, but I can't say that I understand it.

I understand the objections even more poorly. So all I can do at the moment is tell a joke: In the Lutheran Mafia, we don't give you an offer you can't refuse, we give you an offer that you can't understand!Simply put. Justification is initial and sanctification is ongoing.

[DominusIesus]

Justification is initial and sanctification is ongoing.

Justification by faith is the anticipation, in the present time, of the verdict which will be issued on the last day. Those who believe the gospel; those, that is, in whose hearts and lives the Spirit has been at work by the word to produce the faith that Jesus is Lord and the belief that God raised him from the dead – these people are assured, as soon as they believe, that they are dikaioi, in the right. They are declared to be righteous; the verb dikaioo has that declarative force, the sense of something being said which creates a new situation, as when a minister says ‘I pronounce that they are husband and wife’ or when a judge says ‘I declare that the defendant is not guilty’. They are then, because of God’s declaration, ‘righteous’ in the covenantal sense that they are members of the single family God promised to Abraham, in the forensic sense that the divine lawcourt has already announced its verdict in their case, and in the eschatological sense that this verdict properly anticipates the one which will be issued, in confirmation, on the last day. ‘There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Messiah Jesus; for the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death.’ It takes all of the rest of Romans 8 to explain that, of course, but we should be in no doubt that Paul connects in the most intimate way possible the final verdict ‘not condemned’ with the continuing work of the Spirit, and roots that work in the death of Jesus through which sin was condemned and the verdict ‘righteous’ which was already issued as soon as the gospel had produced faith.

This is also the importance of Pentecost, for Pentecost fulfills the Law. Luke tells the story of Pentecost in such a way as to awaken echoes of the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai. Moses went up Mount Sinai and came down with the Torah, the Jewish Law, to be the way of life for the people God had already rescued from slavery in Egypt. The story of the Exodus, in fact, has been underneath the story of Jesus and the early church all through, from the moment when, at Easter, we sang about God loosing Pharaoh’s yoke and setting his people free, only this time the slavemaster being, not Egypt, but sin and death themselves. The Jewish feast of Pentecost, fifty days after Passover, always was the feast of the giving of the Law; fifty days after coming through the Red Sea, they arrive at Mount Sinai, where Moses goes up and comes down with the tablets of stone. Now Jesus has ascended to heaven, and sends the Holy Spirit to be the way of life for God’s redeemed people. This is the fulfilment of the Torah, the Law. But there is of course a difference. The original law was written on tablets of stone; the new law, the law of the Spirit, is written on human hearts. The original law could not give the life it promised, because it didn’t get to the root of the problem. The Spirit transforms the heart, so that we now want to obey. At least, that’s the theory, though anyone with pastoral experience knows that the transformation of the heart doesn’t usually happen all at once, and needs patience and prayer and hard work.

Justification marks the beginning of our walk with God, sanctification is the daily struggle against sin where we do best to take the advice of Luther and remind ourselves that we are baptised, but then he was simply following St. Paul in Romans 6:

What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.


Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.



In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.

[LilLamb219]

MOD HAT ON

I haven't read through the entire thread, but I've received a report that there is non-Lutheran "teaching" going on here which goes against our forum specific guidelines.

While we encourage good discussion, please don't think it's proper to come in and try to change our beliefs.

MOD HAT OFF

[DominusIesus]

I've received a report that there is non-Lutheran "teaching" going on here

Your forum rules allow for debate, "Non-members may ask questions and indeed even debate." Further, perhaps these reporters could show how what has been said goes against the Apostles', Nicene or Athanasian Creed or the Augsburg Confession or five solas?

[Edial]

Your forum rules allow for debate, "Non-members may ask questions and indeed even debate." Further, perhaps these reporters could show how what has been said goes against the Apostles', Nicene or Athanasian Creed or the Augsburg Confession or five solas?
Dear DominusIesus,

As per our Sticky, Lutheranism is defined as it's statement of faith and a subscription to BOC.

Although we do agree on this statement you made ...

The final authority is not the Book of Concord nor is it the Thirty-Nine Articles but rather Scripture.

... a non-Lutheran guests should not make posts in the following context ...

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=47651559#poststop

The Book of Concord was published in 1580, we now live in 2008. In these 428 years we know far more than they did then about many issues to do with exegesis and hermenutics. The doctrine of justification they articulate is very minimalistic as those who wrote it lacked the understanding we have know. Hence you should read the articles on "Justification" and "Righteousness" in the New Dictionary of Theology.


The New Dictionary of Theology was written by David F. Wright.
David F. Wright who just recently passed away and was well respected in his circles, is a Reformed theologian whose view sometimes are not reflective of Lutheran beliefs.


You are allowed to debate here.
These are some of the few congregational forums that allow such freedom and hospitality to our guests.

Yet you are to support your views with Scriptures alone and not articles or other works written by non-Lutherans.
TCL welcomes Scriptures as the foundation of conversations from our guests.


The TCL Moderator Team is asking you to understand these boundaries and to respect them in the light of our Sticky.

Please consider this as a friendly reminder that we usually send in the PM form to guests who have less than 50 posts in CF.
I posted this openly, since you asked the question openly.


Thanks,
Edial
Moderator
Team Temperance

[DominusIesus]

The New Dictionary of Theology was written by David F. Wright.

Actually it was edited by David F. Wright, Sinclair B. Ferguson, and J.I. Packer. It was written by over two-hundred evangelical scholars.

[Edial]

Actually it was edited by David F. Wright, Sinclair B. Ferguson, and J.I. Packer. It was written by over two-hundred evangelical scholars.
Thanks. The editors are still non-Lutheran writers.
Out of the 200 scholars there certainly would be Lutherans, but these writers usually have an article or two as a contribution on specific topics.

And I personally respect J.I.Packer very much.
His defense of the Bible is very, very effective.

Thanks, :)
Ed

[RadMan]

Staff edit.Look it is impossible for any one human being to read references form another denominations book list. THere are thousands of books that would take many lifetimes to read. We can only contend with the books with our denom and maybe a few selected others.

Again you have been advised not to push any "books" as reference but only use the Bible as an example. Relevance is not something many conservative /confessional are concerned with.

[DaRev]

Staff edit.

What you are describing is Historical-Critical interpretation which Confessional Lutheranism rejects. History and cultures change over time, yet the word of God does not. Confessional Lutheranism holds to Grammatical-Critical (aka Grammatico-Historical) interpretation which takes the written word of God as is and doesn't try to add human history and culture into the mix.

As has been said here before, the BoC is thoroughly Scriptural and is a true exposition of the Scriptures. It isn't exhaustive, meaning that it does not expound on every doctrine found within the Bible, but what it does contain certainly does serve as a guide for the doctrines and practices of the Church. Another great resource for Lutheran doctrine is Pieper's Dogmatics.

[DominusIesus]

What you are describing is Historical-Critical interpretation which Confessional Lutheranism rejects. History and cultures change over time, yet the word of God does not. Confessional Lutheranism holds to Grammatical-Critical (aka Grammatico-Historical) interpretation which takes the written word of God as is and doesn't try to add human history and culture into the mix.

No-one is arguing that the word of God changes. I strive to find the intended original meaning in the text. The original intended meaning of the text is drawn out through examination of the passage in light of the grammatical and syntactical aspects, the historical background, the literary genre as well as theological (canonical) considerations.

The Scriptures were not written in a vacuum but are shaped by the history they were written in. One example is that the Psalms make use of mythopoetic language. For example, in Ps 74:12-14 the mythopoetic language about the many-headed Leviathan is historicized and used metaphorically to describe Yahweh's great victory in history, at the Red Sea. The same is true of Isa 27:1 where again the mythic chaos figure Leviathan is historicized to represent the final evil power in the endtimes.

It should also be noted that Luther stated, "The discourses of the Prophets were none of them regularly committed to writing at the time; their disciples and hearers collected them subsequently...Solomon's Proverbs were not the work of Solomon."

[DominusIesus]

Look it is impossible for any one human being to read references form another denominations book list. THere are thousands of books that would take many lifetimes to read. We can only contend with the books with our denom and maybe a few selected others.

If you wish to read only Lutherans then that is fine, that others should follow your example is another matter entirely.

[RadMan]

No-one is arguing that the word of God changes. I strive to find the intended original meaning in the text. The original intended meaning of the text is drawn out through examination of the passage in light of the grammatical and syntactical aspects, the historical background, the literary genre as well as theological (canonical) considerations.

The Scriptures were not written in a vacuum but are shaped by the history they were written in. One example is that the Psalms make use of mythopoetic language. For example, in Ps 74:12-14 the mythopoetic language about the many-headed Leviathan is historicized and used metaphorically to describe Yahweh's great victory in history, at the Red Sea. The same is true of Isa 27:1 where again the mythic chaos figure Leviathan is historicized to represent the final evil power in the endtimes.

It should also be noted that Luther stated, "The discourses of the Prophets were none of them regularly committed to writing at the time; their disciples and hearers collected them subsequently...Solomon's Proverbs were not the work of Solomon."Anyone would be derelict in there biblical studies if they didn't use historical accounts that were pertinent for the time period. The only problem is that some people will use history to explain the Bible instead of the Bible to explain history. Hypothesizing is not taking what the Bible says, but trying to add to it. It's like trying to second guess God.

[LilLamb219]

MOD HAT ON

Thread closed for staff review because of reports received recently. Non-Lutherans, please take time to review the Forum Specific Guidelines and if you need assistance in understanding them, PM a staff member.

MOD HAT OFF