What ever happened to “sound Doctrine”?

Someone asked the pastor I grew up under what was too long for a man. He said if his hair is linger than his wifes it is too long! Of course he was joking on that one he felt a man should have short hair. When a woman with come in with short hair as he shook her hand as we walked out of services he said how are you doing sir.

 

yes I knew this, that is why there was a winking smiley in my post.

I was rasied using both tenses, 'rine and 'rite, interchangeably. lol I only learned the difference as an adult. Before that I thought (maybe even had been taught somewhere or other) that Nazarine used in reference to Christ was a play on words meant to remind the Jewish people of the tradition of the vow, while fullfilling the OT prophecy more literally. (sort of a God pun) Christ's life was certainly holy/consecrated unto God especially once he began his ministry. (though, evidently a Nazarite wasn't allowed to touch grape products at all so the comparison is rather weak)

 

Since His birth to the Jews was somewhat a question mark as to legitimacy, He definitely couldn'y be a Nazarite

 

Back to the original post: what happened to sound doctrine?

SHHH--doctrine offends unsaved seekers. We cannot do that. We cannot use the hard words, hence we just sing little ditties with repetitive easy phrases.

Why--because as one so called preacher said, "we just want to get folks into a zen state so they can experience God."

SAY WHAT?

Give us doctrine or we are just druggies seeking another adrenaline high!

 

Whoa! What?? Is there any evidence that the Jews of Christ day questioned his legitmacy? And why would legitimacy stand in the way of taking the vow of a Nazarite? (since this is sooo very off topic I'm going to start a new thread)

 

No question that there's a lot of false stuff out there. But what about your church?

Do you believe your church teaches Biblical truth? I believe mine does.

I'll bet the large majority of BB members will say yes. Am I right?

My point? God has always had a people.

 

As long as you have sermons based on one , maybe two verses with no real expository preaching. That is , 29 minutes of a preeeeeecher jumping around, yelling and putting down everything from actual sin to television. Then a 1 minute presentation of the Gospel at the invitation.

Sunday school classes are read out of periodicals that are shallower than a kiddy pool with no deep teaching.

Its all programs, programs and more programs. In this setting there is no room left for real teaching of doctrine.

 

Then come to an "Old School" church where there was never anything of that to dilute Scripture. expositiry preaching, plain singing to the glory of the Lord & an emphasis on Scripture & HS. come back my Brother! :jesus:

 

Actually I have found quite the opposite. Jesus found the same thing to be true. It is the religious folks who are members of a church who are offended when one mentions James 1:22 and Mt. 28:19, 20 and their personal responsibility.

 

Paul had trouble with false teachers. That was about 1900 years ago. Are you saying your "Old School church is exempt?

 

My baptist Church does not have a "hard stance" on the question of all of the Spiritual Gifts operating today...

they do NOT believe that they are revelatory in function anymore, believe in God able to still heal, NO faith healers, that one CAN speak in tongues, but only in personal prayer life.. and NO second act of grace"baptism in HS" as ALL us have have that, thats is when the HS places us spiritual into body of Christ!

We are free to have our own understanding in this area, just agree NOT to have gifts operate "in public"....

We can 'co exist" as we do NOT teach preach anything other than 'essentials" of the faith, and agree that this in all a discussion" among those in same camp!"

 

Yep, the trouble I've had from preaching the word hasn't come from non-believers in the congregation. Many are very open to God's word. The vast majority of problems have come from long term church members.

 

I have found the same thing to be true too.

 

You are right of course...but I believe his point was to take a jab at the "seeker sensitive" church movement (whose philosophy he pretty much summed up), not to say how it actually is...

In other words, he was using S-A-R-C-A-S-M

Of course, my church teaches doctrine. I even teach Systematic Theology to my youth. But I guess we are the exception.

 

I would define speaking in tongues in a personal prayer life as a second act of grace. The gift of languages is/was a supernatural gift given for the first century believers during the apostolic age. It was never given for private use, never! All spiritual gifts were for public use and public edification of the church. Never were any gifts for "selfish" or private use.

When a person prays in "tongues" what language are they praying in? Do they know? If not it is unbiblical, because they are praying without understanding.
Are they praying with an interpreter? If not they are doing so unbiblically for speaking in languages always required an interpreter; if no interpreter was present they were to shut up.
Prayer is for communication. What do you communicate to God in another language? What are your requests? Do you know for what you are praying for? And if you don't know, are you sure God does? Maybe it is Satan controlling your thought processes and you are praising him instead. It has been know to happen, unless you are certain that you know the language that you are praying in, how do you know what you are praying for or what you are even saying? How do you know that you are not saying blasphemous things?

 

"No one call call Jesus as Lord EXCEPT by the Holy Spirit"
Paul was thankful to God that he did speak in tongues.... (more so than others)
Greater is HE that is in mE< that he that is in the World...

being saved by God, indwelt by His HS...
IF you want to say that speaking in tongues as the HS gives utterance is "not for today" not biblical, and that I ate too much Pizza... Fine!

Just hard to understand HOW a Christian can have the "devil" speaking thru his mouth, or giving him the words to speak against God with!

Where in the new testament did THAT happen to real believers in Christ?

By the way, tongues to me are least of the gifts bestowed by God, and that all gifts pale before loving others, especially those of your family and of the faith!

last question...

IF you hold that certain gifts ceased...

Agree with your points on public operation for benefit of the Church...

Doesn't the Church still need to just as much uplifted/edified/encouraged as back than?
Why did the Lord give us the biblical order/pattern to have them applied correctly, but that was only suppossed to be in place during Apostolic era?

 

Whether or not they have ceased or not is a separate issue. Tongues are NEVER described in scripture as useful in prayer. Tongues are for the public proclamation of the Gospel, a sign to "unbelievers," as seen in Acts Chapter 2 (ref. 1 Corinthians 14:22). They are always an earthly, proclaimed language, unknown to the speaker.

 

except the first time that they were 'publically" used by God was during the speech that peter made on pentacost that resulted in some 3000.00 gewtting saved that very day... Apostle pter was speaking in his "normal" tongue, his language, and the Holy Spirit "interpreted" the message so that each hearer heard the message of Jesus as the Messiah in teir own "native tongue"

So those "tongues" were language speaker knew, HS gave others the message in their 'tongues"...

What verse says it of "unknown language?"

 

The very fact that he said that indicated that some were speaking in an ecstatic tongue and not knowing what they were saying, possibly denying Christ. He was referring to their pagan backgrounds from which they came out of.

The statement is a sarcastic rebuke. He then says I would rather speak in five words with understanding then 10,000 words without understanding (in another language).

That speaks of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit; has nothing to do with tongues.

You can't speak in tongues if tongues have ceased.
If you think you can speak in tongues, then define the language that you are speaking in. They were known languages. The are always known languages. If tongues were a gift for today, then why do missionaries have to study foreign languages--even Charismatic missionaries. Why don't they use the gift of languages (more appropriately called)?

Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. (Acts 2:11)
Cretans and Arabians: we hear them speaking in our languages the mighty works of God!" (Acts 2:11)
--These were known languages; not ecstatic utterances as one hears today. It wasn't gibberish like today.

Once you open up your mind, stop thinking, then you allow the devil entrance to a playground to do pretty much any thing he wants to do. The Bible admonishes us to always have control of our mind, to think, meditate, study, take heed, etc.

So it says in 1Cor.12:28ff. It lists all the gifts in order of importance. And tongues and the interpretation thereof are at the bottom of the list.

These spiritual gifts were given when the NT was not yet complete. When the NT was completed, at the end of the first century, then these gifts faded away, as history attests. They were no more needed. We have the Word of God and that is all that is necessary, as Heb.1:1,2 teaches. All that we need to know about God is contained within the pages of this book (the Bible). We do not need the spiritual gifts of the first century to give us extra knowledge to help us out in that manner. The canon of Scripture is closed.