Should Doctrine matter?

My,my, how we tangle ourselves in a mass of confusion?

The pastor/ leader, is out of order and should be dismissed, then the church should go on for the glory of God and not the glory of men.

In case you hadn't noticed, this pastor has known about the error of the teacher since 2004. Either he concurs with the teaching and needs dismissal, or he isn't a pastor just an hireling.

Just how many of those under this authority have been corrupted?

I wasn't talking about breaking fellowship with the church, but with the pastor!

 

OK, this is offsubject, but is included in the uh, debate.

Headcoverings? A piece of cloth or like material over-rides the headship of the husband now?

 

Think this through logically John.
You said that you "support the idea that persons can choose to adhere to the wearing of headcoverings for themselves or their congregations."
Why would "persons" do that?
They do that because they have the Scriptural conviction that all Christian women ought to do the same, whether they do or not. You are at liberty to disagree. But they are at liberty to stand by their conviction without being called a heretic holding to false doctrine as you say they are. Your opinion is worthless, as long as it remains just that. If you can't back it up with Scripture then it simply is opinion and nothing else, and you have no right to call the Scriptural convicion of another as false doctrine just becasue you disagree with it.
We can freely admit we disagree with one another without calling each other heretics and false teachers. So calm down.
DHK

 

Or maybe Paul should have? I simply quoted Paul.

I never claimed nor implied as such. The mistake was yours if that's what you got from my post.

 

Dear DHK,
I don't quite see what the importance is of not using the term "false doctrine".
I don't necessarily see it as name-calling, just describing that something is incorrect.
For example, I believe, as other Baptists do, that believer's baptism by immersion is correct.
And that infant baptism by sprinkling is not baptism. It would be false doctrine. However, that does not mean the person believing that is a heretic or a pagan. It means that some of what that person believes is a false doctrine.
I am sure that when I get to Heaven that any false doctrines I hold to now will be corrected.

Since you are a moderator, maybe you can answer this question. All I can find is the current User Agreement. But there used to be a lengthy list of other rules, such as no cross-posting, no calling each other a non-Christian, etc.
If it still exists, it is not obvious. Yet your post and many others on other threads imply that it does. Where is this list if it is still in existence?

Karen

 

We are in a Baptist forum. The examples you brought up are non-Baptistic doctrine, and definitely unbiblical as we know they are. There are many sincere believers on this board which would take great offence at the "accusation" of believing in a "false doctrine" when such is not true.

If John wants to disagree with what others believe then let him disagree. But to accuse other sincere beleiving Baptists, who hold to a Baptistic doctrine, as a "false doctrine," only because John thinks it is, and has no Scriptural support for such, is wrong.
DHK

 

Karen,

The board rules are found at the top of the page at this link:

http://www.baptistboard.com/postingrules.html

 

So he thinks that it's false doctrine to teach that head coverings are biblically mandated, and you think that it's false doctrine to teach that they aren't. Why don't we call it even and move on?

Probably a better example of doctrine versus interpretation would be something like hair length in men and certain types of activities like the infamous "mixed bathing." Or even snake handling--do we have any snake handlers here to be offended??

I think things sound like a mess at this church. What type of church do the people think that it is who aren't aware that it is a Southern Baptist church?

If there are problems with true bad doctrine in the church I'd say it needs to be sorted out even if it means people leave.

Whether I would use teaching materials from groups with contrary beliefs would probably depend on the material and the situation. In a church Sunday School probably not because it would be other people's children I would be dealing with, and I wouldn't want to mislead others who would see it lying around and might think I agreed completely. With my own children I might because I would be able to elimate the objectionable material or even use as an opportunity to teach proper doctrine.

 

How is headcovering a baptistic doctrine?

 

OP by Paladin

Amswered by John

Notice that the church in question by Paladin is probably a Charismatic Church, not a Baptist Church. It's doctrine in question is "the baptism of the Holy Spirit." John's post is taken up with "doctrines" concerning the wearing of pants and headcoverings. It really is a red herring to what Paladin was asking advice about. The Charasmatics had a doctrine that is different than the Baptists. That is one good reason why they are relegated to "The Other Denomination Forum" instead of being allowed to post in a Baptist Forum. They are not Baptists. Their doctrine is different. It has nothing to do with pants and headcoverings.
How far in doctrine does one go, before they draw the line and say: no more. Is it legitimate to include a link on a Baptist church website to a Charismatic church website, where the doctrine is so different. Are not these the real issues?
DHK

 

The first Baptist distinctive is the Bible is our only rule of faith and order.
If you want me to go through 1Cor.11, and show you how God commands women to wear a headcovering in the church today, with the only other viable option of shaving her head, I will do so. But start another thread for it.
It is Baptist because it is Biblical.
DHK

 

I took over a Sunday School class in a church that did not use any printed curriculum. The previous teacher MAY have studied from a curriculum, but he never told anyone if he did. He mainly "lectured" from the Bible in this class. (This is an Adult class, by the way).

When this teacher's job caused him to have to re-locate, I was asked to teach this class. I was given the liberty to teach it how I wanted to. I started looking at curriculum from every company / church I could find.

I think I've probably looked at every curriculum developed by every company out there, and, believe it or not, there ARE some better materials out there than those produced by LifeWay. And, believe it or not, some of these materials are produced by Pentecostal churches. If your Children's Ministry Leader has discovered some of these materials, that's great.

I would suggest you let him/her continue using these materials. If you are really convinced that the children of your church do not need to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and that by keeping it out of your teaching materials they will never learn (from any other source) that it is available to them, then you could simply do this:

Tell your Children's Ministry Leader that they can continue to use these materials, but someone in your church will be appointed to review each lesson, in advance, before it is presented to the children. If the upcoming lesson mentions the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, the teacher(s) involved could be instructed to leave this part out of their lesson.

This won't even be an issue very often, though, because it's only maybe 2 or 3 times a year that you will even find the Baptism of the Holy Spirit mentioned in these materials that are produced for pentecostal / charismatic churches. The rest of the time, they're just like the materials used by real Christians.

 

DHK,

I can't help but think you may have overreacted here. As I read John's comment, he said that people disagree on matters, such as headcovering. He said If you teach head covering is mandated for all Christians, you are a false teacher.

What he did not say is that people who teach headcoverings are false teachers. (At least I didn't see him say that.) What he said was quite correct: If you hold to headcovering AND teach that all others must hold to headcovering, you are a false teacher. That is a very specific group. It does not include those who believe that headcovering are proper.

Perhaps John will correct my reading, but as I read it, he didn't say what you accuse him of. I happen to agree with him. Headcovering is a matter of interpretation or application, not a matter of doctrine. Baptists can disagree on that issue. But you do not have the authority to teach your position as the "only right position" for women. Indeed, the whole headcovering application stands on very weak legs under rigorous examination. But that has been beat up ad nauseum and this is not the place.

Secondly, Natters said that Doctrine matters but love matters more. This is quite incorrect. Paul's point in 1 Cor 13 was not that doctrine doesn't matter, but that right doctrine must be held in love. Love for God shows us that doctrien does matter. Love does not "matter more" than doctrine.

Thirdly, to the point of the thread, Yes, it does matter. If a teacher is teaching something contrary to the church doctrinal statement on a major issue of the faith, then he should be confronted and called to change, and then removed if he does not.

 

The opening post did not address whether or not chidlren needed to be filled with the Holy Spirit. The topic was a "second Baptism of the HOly Spirit" and that is a teaching contrary to most Baptist doctrinal statements.

Be careful not to slyly change the subject by confusing baptism and filling.

 

Neither I, nor Paul, said that doctrine doesn't matter. In fact, my very first post in this thread says it does matter.

 

Duh ... That's what I said you said, and you even quoted it.

What you were incorrect about is to say that love matters more. Paul makes no such statement of priority, and neither should you.

 

The truth is that it is always a show of love to teach correct doctrine and correct incorrect doctrine. One is not greater than the other.

Joseph Botwinick

 

My,my, how we tangle ourselves in a mass of confusion?

The pastor/ leader, is out of order and should be dismissed, then the church should go on for the glory of God and not the glory of men.</font>[/QUOTE] The pastor should be dealt with biblically.

That is the only way God will be glorified and not men in this situation. What you propose would most certainly glorify men.

In any case, God prescribed a means for dealing with an errant brother. The first option is to correct and reconcile.

If biblical discipline has not been started then it doesn't matter if it had been 1994. The pastor's failure to do as he should doesn't give the members liberty to make up their own rules for dealing with him.

Maybe this is why Baptists so frequently split churches. Many aren't willing to seek reconciliation by God's methods.

 

A perfect example of the point I was making, thanks.

I was referring to where you said "Paul's point in 1 Cor 13 was not that doctrine doesn't matter".

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...There are three things that will endure--faith, hope, and love--and the greatest of these is love.

Looks like a statement of priority to me.

One can teach correct doctrine without love.

 

That wasn't said. What was said is that the materials in use were developed by a group that teach the false doctrine of the second filling... as characterized by tongues, prophecy, visions, etc.

The only way this should be taught in a Baptist church is to identify it as the false doctrine that it is. We should certainly warn people about the error being spread under the banner of pentecostalism.

The OP was apparently not written by the pastor. They have no biblical authority to tell the CM Leader to do anything.

They could have attempted to correct them privately before it became a major issue. But the issue is no longer as simple as using materials from a doctrinally unsound organization. It now involves the leadership and discernment of the pastor. Correction must start there now.

Why? Why go to all that effort?

The pastor then the CM Leader should be subject to church discipline. Both teachers and pastors have biblical authority and responsibilities. Your solution ignores both elements.

No need to get pragmatic when scripture already prescribes a solution.