All About GOD - Growing Relationships with Jesus and Others
Doctrine vs Preference
We often see people existing in one extreme or another. There are some who would ignore doctrine for the sake of unity, but can there really be unity in the body if doctrine (teaching found in God's Word) is ignored? There is another group that has taken mere prefernces and elevated them to the level of doctrine, at least in their teaching. An example of this can be the style of worship. Some are more demonstrative than others, but neither is wrong if the heart is right. Style of worship is a preference, not a doctrine.
What do you think about the importance of sound doctrine in one's life and in the church? Have you seen things that are preferences turned into doctrine? If so, give an example, but leave names and organization names out of the comment. How do we stay centered on Christ in the midst of the chaos?
Lord Bless,
LT
Views: 2566
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Charles Burwell on
-
LT
I don't believe that a individual or a church can thrive or even survive without sound doctrine . I hasten to add emphasis to the ' sound ' part of the statement . I once heard a quote that said something like this :
" If we stand for nothing we will fall for anything. " Again I must emphasize the term ' sound doctrine. " We must know the truth of different aspects of Christian doctrine if we are ever able to be comforted , aided and protected by them. Because when we understand the truths of Christianity we will not be disappointed after placing our complete confidence in the word of God.
As others have stated , I received the Lord in a hardline ( my name only ) pentecostal denomination. They taught , as others stated, that if you do not speak in tongues or shout ( as they called it ) in church then you were not saved or at the very least ashamed of God and His Holy Spirit. Being the non demonstrative person that I am this was this was quite a hinderance to me until the Lord delivered me from such teachings.
I do not use the term ' delivered ' lightly either . I constantly was wondering what was wrong with me that I didn't" run and shout " or ' fall out ' in the spirit. The Lord was , as He always is , faithful to open my eyes to the truth of the matter as I sincerely sought Him He helped me realize that the ' gifts ' of the Spirit are not nearly as important as the ' fruit ' of the Spirit . And if we seek the giver of the 'gifts' everything else will fall into place .
I must totally agree with those who say that ' preferences ' are one of the worst dividers in the church. And by church I mean the body of Christ and not any particular 'body' or 'assembly'. So many ' preferences ' are no different than the things that Jesus rebuked the Pharisees of old for proclaiming. Spiritual ' prejudice is like a cancer in the body of Christ.
If we prefer a type of worship or believe that the Lord leads us to dress , or not dress, a certain way we should understand that the Lord may indeed be leading us in that direction for whatever His reasons, but that does not make it the 'law' for others. The Holy Spirit is much more capable than we are of determining what is ' right ' for the individual. I hasten to add that things must always be done in decency and in order, but we should let the Spirit determine what is ' decent and ' in order.
I believe that when we spend more time asking God to help keep us straight and less time trying to straighten others out then the Lord will truely bless and prosper our endeavers . That is not to say that we should not try to help others understand the potential dangers to themselves or to their ministry when they do certain things .
I am simply saying that we should first ask the Lord HIS opinion before we offer ours. I love an old hymn that I can't remember the title of but in the chorus was the statement something like this " if you have a problem with me or we simple don't agree , all I ask before you speak is go and tell Jesus on me."
The point being that if we have a problem with someone saying or doing something we don't agree with before we go to them first go and see if Jesus has a ' problem with it ' then act accordingly.
I have just realized how long winded I've been so I'll close.
God bless
-
Permalink Reply by Leonard T on
-
Charles,
Good to hear from you. Yes, this is the kind of input I am looking for as I stated to Roy above. We really need to return to simple Christianity.
-
Permalink Reply by Jenny on
-
being a young Christian, i would appreciate if anyone can offer some of the basic doctrines.
i can think of perhaps:
the Person of Jesus Christ (God in the flesh)
the blood atonement
the resurrection
man's depravity
Jesus the only way of salvation and reconciliation to God
i may be confusing what people mean when they say doctrine, so please correct me if i have misunderstood
-
Permalink Reply by RoyW on
-
Jenny,
The Trinity is important but a little divisive. A solid statement of salvation by grace through faith alone would disable a lot of preferences. Also, a statement that Jesus is coming back would be good. You would not have to get into the differences of ideas on that one. Man's depravity also could stir some controversy but probably could be said in a way that both the Calvinist and the Armenian could agree.
There are some doctrines that are divisive but necessary. Those we cannot get rid of. One's position of the Bible does not separate most Christians. I believe that one would be important. I think it would be interesting to find out those doctrines that people feel they just cannot do without.
Good job.
-
Permalink Reply by Amanda on
-
Roy, who gets to decide what is essential and what is non-essential? I mean, if the trinity is an example of what is important but not essential, then what are the parameters for deciding what doctrines we just cannot do without? Maybe we could do without them all except the gospel alone and just keep our beliefs beyond that to ourselves.
1 Corinthians 15
New International Version (NIV)
The Resurrection of Christ
15 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve.
The chapter goes on to talk about the Resurrection of the dead. There are various beliefs about how and when it will happen, which are probably not important, but we must believe in the resurrection and we must believe it is still in the future. So is it an essential doctrine? Many divide over an eternal hell, soul sleep, baptism by sprinkling versus immersion, sabbath versus Lord's Day, and so many different things. It seems we can't understand God's Message to us.
-
-
And so it begins. You see, I could give up Calvinism as an essential doctrine but I see no way I could give up the Trinity. When I say give us, I mean I would not stop believing certain things but I would not need for them to be in a statement of faith. The Trinity and the Bible are two that I believe are essential. That is why I say I have no answer to the dilemma but I am certainly willing to listen. I see no way for the doctrine of Christ to work without the Trinity and I don't see how we could ever come to any kind of agreement unless we first admit the Scripture is the authority. I wonder how others feel about essential doctrine. You mention some essential pointa in my opinion.
-
-
I don't know what you mean by "And so it begins"--is it OK to have this conversation?
You said:
I think it would be interesting to find out those doctrines that people feel they just cannot do without.
So, I was merely asking who gets to decide and what are the parameters for deciding what doctrines we just cannot do without?
-
-
Amanda, I said it in a good way. You have very good points. You indicated that the Trinity might not be essential and then I come on and say that the Trinity is essential. I don't have the answer how we could ever agree on all parts. I think we would need a committee of sorts from all the different groups to get together and come up with a basic statement of faith. LT is talking about it becoming simpler. We all agree on about 80% or so. If we could just agree to not have that other included, that would be a great start.
I have actually heard people talk about a rapture preceding a seven year tribulation as being essential to the doctrine of faith.
-
-
I thought you were indicating that the trinity is not essential when you said it is important but divisive ... I made the inference from what you said that it is better not to be divisive. My bad! :)
-
-
Actually,
I do believe it is essential but on the next page we are speaking about does that have to be believed in order to be saved. I think I would agree with you that it does not.
-
-
To be saved one must be able to see their sin and have sorrow for it and for trespassing against a Holy God and one must be able to see that Jesus is the answer, that He died for their sins, paid the full penalty required for sinning against a holy and just and righteous God and one must be able to believe in His resurrection, for without the Resurrection, salvation is futile, so ... that gets pretty simple. IMO
-
Welcome to
All About GOD
The Good News
Meet Face-to-Face & Collaborate
© 2024 Created by AllAboutGOD.com.
Powered by
