Should Doctrine matter?

A church should keep out beliefs that violate doctrine. However, a church should not confuse doctrinal matters with interpretational or application matters. Women wearing pants or headcoverings is a good example. If a church wants to practice the wearing of headcoverings as an application, that's fine. However, to teach that wearing headcoverings for all Christians is scripturally mandated is false doctrine, and must be avoided.

 

John, you are quite out of order here.
Baptists have difference of opinions on different issues, and we are free to disagree. We call that soul liberty.

If a church teaches the wearing of headcoverings for all Christian women is a Scriptural teaching, I doubt if you have a Scriptural leg to stand on except for your own opinion. Given any debate, confined to the Scrtiptures alone, the winner will always go the one advocating the covering of the head, hands down. It is a Scriptural teaching, in fact a command in the Bible that ought not to be ignored. Now that I have stated my position, and what I believe to be a Biblical one, you have just said that I believe in false doctrine, have inferred that I am a false teacher, and by that have inferred that I am a heretic. Would you care to take any of that back and apologize for what you have said. I know that there are many on this board that also believe in wearing headcoverings. It is against BB rules to label them as false teachers believing in false doctrine, especially in a context such as this.

As to the OP, If the website is against your statement of faith, then by all means have nothing to do with it. Does not the Bible say "Contend for "the faith." Which faith are you contending for? Contending for the faith is far more important than dispensing with the faith for the sake of unity.
DHK

 

Yes, doctrine matters. But love matters more.

 

I think the issue should be does your individual church agree with what this children's minister is teaching?

 

Love for God comes first and that requires that we have an unyielding devotion to His Word and what it teaches us.

I agree with John to the extent that there are matters of interpretation on things that aren't heavily supported with scripture. Scripture gives us very few rules regarding outward appearance when compared to teachings on salvation, creation, character, repentance, faith, the nature/attributes of God, etc.

Our beliefs must be derived from submission to God's Word. Unity and "love" that are pleasing to God can only occur when there is agreement on the essentials of God's Word.

Of course we all have ideas about what the essentials are...

 

Not. Love is an attribute of God. The Holiness of God is THE Doctrine.

 

Not. Love is an attribute of God. The Holiness of God is THE Doctrine. </font>[/QUOTE]"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing."

 

if what the children's minister is teaching is contrary to what your church says it believes he should not be allowed to teach this material. And I think it is the pastors place to do something about it. What does he belielve about the topic in question?
When you see what is obviously false entering your church I think sitng back and watching is the wrong thing to do. but it must be handled so as to try and keep the church intact, unless there are those who beleive the false teaching and prefer it to the teachings of your church

 

DHK,

Three points concerning John's post and your response:

1. John did not say it was a false doctrine or heresy to believe that God wants women to wear headcoverings. He did say that it should not be taught that those who don't believe the same are not Christians or that they are heretics...which leads me to point #

2. Are you stating that those who do not believe that headcoverings for women are mandated for all Christians of all times are heretics? If so, you should understand that you are, as well, breaking the BB's rules and I am quite certain that the majority of Baptists on this board, including several moderators, would probably disagree with you.

3. I agree with John's post about headcoverings. It is not a salvation issue and should not be considered a test of fellowship. At the same time, those who wish to wear headcoverings should be respected as well. This is not an issue that is worth fighting over.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Not trying to pick at you or anything but why do you attend that particular church? Just curious since there are indications of alot of problems.

I would suggest that you follow the biblical model of confrontation outlined in Mat 18. At this point, I would approach the pastor on his failure to lead rather than trying to usurp his authority to discipline those he is responsible for. He can choose rightly or wrongly but I don't think he can remain neutral on that kind of doctrine.

BTW, Is that Paladin as in Furman? Catamount alum here.

 

Mass murderers can also have a sense of unity, should what they teacj also be tolerated?

Your wife is NOT the pastor, and your pastor should resign the church and join the charismatics he is already.

Since you say this is an SBC church, contact some other SBC churches in your area and recommend they break fellowship and make a public example of this pastor, IOW, VOTE HIM OUT!!!

 

Not. Love is an attribute of God. The Holiness of God is THE Doctrine. </font>[/QUOTE]"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." </font>[/QUOTE]OK, so by your assumption, the Holiness of God is sidestepped by the love of the brethren?

 

Actually, the incorrect assumption is that it is unloving to challenge, correct wrong doctrine, and to stand up for correct doctrine. The exact opposite is true.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Amen Joseph. At this point though, it is the pastor who must be confronted for failing to fulfill his God mandated responsibility to lead and teach sound doctrine. He is responsible for anything taught by anyone he uses as a teacher.

 

What assumption are you referring to?

I don't even understand what you're saying. I simply quoted 1 Cor 13:1-2. Being perfectly correct in doctrine is worth nothing if you don't have love.

 

How can it be out of order to insist that a church keep itself free of beliefs that violate doctrine?

In fact, you agree with me that the concept of soul liberty allows persons to practice matters of interpretation and application as they see fit, so long as that is not confused with doctrine.

If you beileve that all Christian women everywhere are scripturally mandated to cover their heads, then yes, you're as guity of false doctrine as those who espouse KJVOism.

You imply that I'm a heretic when I say that scriptural headcovering is not mandated for all women. Would you care to take any of that back?

Believing in headcoverings as a matter of application (which falls under individual soul liberty) and insisting that this is a doctrinal mandate for all Christians are two different things. I of course support the idea that persons can choose to adhere to the wearing of headcoverings for themselves or their congregations. I do not support the idea that this is a doctrinal mandate for all Christians.

 

Here is what John said:

Thus I believe in false doctrine and should be avoided. This is offensive.

No, I did not say that, nor did I infer it. I prefaced my remarks by saying that Baptists disagree on many matters, and we call that soul liberty. But it is wrong to call one another heretics and false teachers because of a difference of opinion in theology on these matters, as John did.

I am open to others interpretations, beliefs, and will debate them as I suggested. But it is offensive to be called a false teacher, or stated to believe in false doctrine. Does he have that right to state it so boldly when many Baptists believe so. The OP, as far as I know wasn't even referring to another Baptist Church. Yet this issue is particularly Baptist in many IFB churches.

Then why didn't he say that. I can agree with what you said. I would never make it a test of fellowship eithet. It is a belief our church holds to, but nothing that we would break fellowship over. There is no need to go labeling other believers heretics, false teachers, teaching false doctrine, ets. He has his own opinion on the matter. Keep it to yourself if your so emotional about it; but don't label it as a heresy. It isn't. It is taught in the Bible.
DHK

 

Salamander

Break fellowship!? My, my, you are quick on the draw, arn't you? That is missing about 3 or 4 steps of church discipline as Jesus outlined in Matt.18, as someone else has already mentioned.

What about reconcilation? What about teaching on the issue? What about using it as an opportunity to bring the church together and get a consensus on the issue?

 

What assumption are you referring to?

I don't even understand what you're saying. I simply quoted 1 Cor 13:1-2. Being perfectly correct in doctrine is worth nothing if you don't have love. </font>[/QUOTE]Maybe you should have said, "Being perfectly correct in doctrine includes love"?

You replied leaving open the assumption that you think love somehow negates doctrine, but Pure Doctrine includes the charity spoken of by Paul.