Should Doctrine matter?

One can teach correct doctrine without love. </font>[/QUOTE]One cannot properly express biblical love and tolerate obvious doctrinal error within the fellowship.

 

I agree. I was talking about the flip side: One can be intolerant of doctrinal error in an unloving way.

 

Have you been suckered into the humanistic lie that everything is relative and there are no absolutes? That is what they teach in the public schools nowadays.

You quoted John for me: "If you teach head coverings are mandated for all Christians you are a false teacher." And I will say that that statement is way out in left field and is as false as can be.

Let's use a comparsion. I believe in the virgin birth. But you suggest that I teach only the virgin birth to my congregation and that it should not be a binding truth on any other Christian. It is only my conviction. Other Christians can believe what they want. I have no right to say that other Christians should believe in the virgin birth as well, even though that is my conviction. You want to muzzle me on my convictions on the Bible, even though they are firmly based in Scripture. You may be well-meaning in your denial of the virgin birth, but you don't want me to dogmatically assert my belief in the virgin because it is only applicable to my congregation, and should not be imposed on others. Have I got your thinking straight? Otherwise if I say that belief in the virgin birth is a Scriptural doctrine for ALL Christians (because that is my conviction) that puts me in the wrong, because you don't believe it is. I am sorry. I don't see it that way. I have perfect liberty to believe and preach my convictions without being called a false teacher.
DHK

 

DHK,

If one rejects the doctrine of the Virgin Birth or blood atonement, would that not make them heretics, and false teachers? If one rejects that headcoverings for women, would that make them as equally heretical and false teachers? The virgin birth is a major doctrine of the Bible, which is a salvation issue and is worth seperating over. Headcovering is not. See the difference?

Joseph Botwinick

 

I know that difference very well, and that is why I used a a major doctrine. Just as I have the right to preach the doctrines of justification by faith, the atonement, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of our Lord, I also have the perfect right to preach to preach my conviction on headcovering. If I believe it applies to the women in my church, I would be a hypocrite to say that it did not apply to women in all of Christianity, wouldn't I. The same goes for any doctrine about which one has a conviction. The two ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper are given to the local church, and are carried out only in the local church. But the doctrine is applicable to every local church. The same applies to headcoverings. I would be a hypocrite if I didn't believe so. At the same time I don't believe it is an issuee to separate over.
I am not a KJVO, but I do believe that the King James is preserved in the textus receptus. You may disagree with me. I have the right to preach my convictions. I resent being called a false teacher because I hold to a legitimate position. That would be what John would call me. He holds one position, and I another. Is that cause to call one a false teacher? That is the issue here. Instead of being an issue of soul liberty, and the right to amiably disagree one with another, it has become the right to call people names and false teachers. That is offensive and wrong.
DHK

 

Would you call a preacher who preaches the opposite of you on headcoverings a false teacher?

Joseph Botwinick

 

A perfect example of the point I was making, thanks.</font>[/QUOTE]What? That doesn't make much sense.

I was referring to where you said "Paul's point in 1 Cor 13 was not that doctrine doesn't matter".</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, you are agreeing with me. Paul's point in 1 Cor 13 is not that doctrine doesn't matter. It does matter. So does love.

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.</font>[/QUOTE]That is not a statement of priority between doctrine and love. The faith in view there is not doctrine.

Looks like a statement of priority to me.

They can, but they shouldn't. But it is still wrong to say that love matters more than doctrine.

 

No, never. I would never use a term so strong as that. I have continued to say throughout this thread that we have soul liberty--the right to disagree with each other. He has the perfect right to disagree with me, just without the name calling. You have the perfect right to disagree with me on the King James issue. Just don't call me a heretic for believing what I believe to be true. We all have the right to express what we believe to be true. When you expressed that the virgin birth was a doctrine that was essential to our salvation. Those doctrines and doctrines essential to the person of Christ; variation from such doctrines makes one a heretic.
DHK

 

DHK,

I am glad you wouldn't call that preacher a false teacher. I am curious, however, since it is your conviction that the Bible teaches the opposite, and you are not suckered in by relativism, would you then say that what the preacher is preaching is false doctrine? What would you say about a preacher who teaches differently from you about headcoverings?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Of course not. You know that.

No, that statement was absolutely correct. If you teach that my wife must wear headcoverings to be godly, then you are a false teacher. She doesn't have to wear headcoverings to be godly. Your conscience on a matter of interpretive liberty is not binding on anyone else. For you to teach that I or anyone else must live by your conscience is false teaching.

This is an invalid comparison since the virgin birth is a clearly revealed fundamental of the faith and headcoverings is a minor application of a particular passage. You can't even begin to compare them.

No because you are comparing a clearly revealed doctrine with an interpretation of a point of application. A better analogy with headcoverings would be something like women wearing pants, or the length of a man's hair, or attendance at the Hollywood movies, or some such thing. In a comparison, you have to use things of equal weight. You didn't.

Again, you are comparing apples and oranges, or more precisely, you are comparing apples and skyscrapers. They just aren't in teh same category.

Surely you haven't bought the idea that truth is relative have you??? Of course you haven't, so you can see the fallacy of arguing by "how you see it" as a mandate for the rest of us. "How you see it" mandates for you, not for me or anyone else on matters of conscience and liberty.

Yes, but the moment you cross the line and try to make your convictions about a matter of conscience to be an universal authority is the moment you become a false teacher. And that is where you are going wrong.

It is find for you to believe in headcoverings. It is fine for you to teach it. But honesty and exegetical integrity requires you to admit that it is a matter of your liberty and conscience, not a matter of clearly revealed fundamental doctrine. Anyone who makes a matter of conscience a test of godliness is a false teacher.

The reason why it is false teaching is a very narrow and precise reason. It isn't because you believe in headcoverings. It is because you try to mandate it for everyone else. In any event, this thread isn't about headcoverings. It is about doctrine. And yes, the doctrine of the chruch should be defended. I wouldn't let someone mandate headcoverings here. A churhc that believed in headcoverings probably wouldn't let a teacher contradict it, nor should they.

 

I think the point he was trying to make was: "duh" is not a very loving response, but one tainted with a great deal of arrogance, something you tend to display on the BB quite often.

 

What? That doesn't make much sense.
</font>[/QUOTE]"Duh" is not a word that conveys love, when discussing doctrine with someone.

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.</font>[/QUOTE]That is not a statement of priority between doctrine and love. The faith in view there is not doctrine.
</font>[/QUOTE]Yet by that faith is how we accept most of our doctrines.

They can, but they shouldn't. But it is still wrong to say that love matters more than doctrine.
[/QUOTE]

With whom is God more pleased: the man who is factually correct but uses his knowledge to smite his brothers, or the man who got some facts wrong but showed love?

 

Duh is a statement of jest, or humor, perhaps missed on those who take themselves too seriously. It was funny to me to read him deny me saying what he quoted me as saying. And arrogance is not how I do things. I don't display arrogance on here. I make a studied effort not to.

 

This isn't exactly what we're talking about, but it's similar:

Of course here Paul is talking about how our acts do not purify us, but we can also see from this also that following all of the proper procedures but not having the right spirit is useless.

 

I think the point he was trying to make was: "duh" is not a very loving response, but one tainted with a great deal of arrogance, something you tend to display on the BB quite often. </font>[/QUOTE]Is this the sum of your contribution? If so, why did you bring your personal grudge here?

 

We weren't discussing doctrine at that point. We were discussing what I said ... which was exactly what you said. For some reason, you quoted me and then appeared to say that I said somethign different. My statement was, as I said, a statement of jest. It was funny ...

IT is probably more correct to say that faith is how we accept all of our doctrines. But it is also more precise to say that Paul's delineaetion of faith, love, and hope is not about doctrine. So the priority he is giving has nothing to do with love vs. doctrine.

Neither. God is displeased with both, but for different reasons. You seem to be trying to create a dichotomy where there is none. It is incorrect to say that Doctrine matters but love matters more.

 

It isn't that you believe that Jesus is the only way to the Father. It is because you try to mandate it for everyone else.

 

"At that point", we weren't. So what? "Duh" is mocking and unloving, regardless of how much jest you personally felt.

No, again, my response was only in regards to part of your statement. I suppose I should have shortened the quote to just the words I was responding to.

Verse 2, specifically the words about "all knowledge", is tied directly into his statements about love.

Neither. God is displeased with both, but for different reasons. You seem to be trying to create a dichotomy where there is none.
</font>[/QUOTE]I disagree. I'm not saying that God is not displeased with error, but God looks on the heart.

Supposing pretrib is doctrinally correct, a posttrib believer that shows love to his opponent is more Christ-like than a pretrib supporter that hates his brother. Supposing eternal security is doctrinally correct, a believer that denies eternal security but loves his neighbor is more Christ-like than a strict Calvinist that has no love. This is simple.

1 Pet 4:8 says And above all things have fervent love for one another, for "love will cover a multitude of sins."

Would not "above all things" also include doctrine? Why does this verse not say "And above all things, attain perfect doctrine for one another"?

 

You misunderstand me. I didn't say anything about the godliness of your wife. Wearing a headcovering is a command of Scripture. You may read it for yourself. To not wear it is disobedience to that command. That is all. That doesn't make me a false teacher for saying so. And it says nothing about the godliness of your wife. I believe that I have correctly interpreted the Scripture, just as I believe I have correctly interpreted the Scripture to say that baptism is by immersion after salvation. There is a great dispute about that in the Other Religions forum. I believe I am right and the COC think I am out to lunch. I believe you are out to lunch and I am right in this issue. In both cases I will preach what I believe anyway. If right is right, then it is right for all. If it is not right for all, then it seems that you believe in relativism. What is right for me, is not right for you. That is what relativism is. And the Bible does not teach that.

Throughout the Bible there are clearly defined doctrines, whether you agree with them or not.

No it isn't. Wearing pants is an application of modesty. There is a clear command in Scripture to wear a headcovering. There is no application per se, or interpretation thereof. It is a command. Either you obey or you don't. The choice is yours.

Perhaps baptism is a better comparison. They both involve baptism. Either you obey or you don't. They both involve obedience.

Truth is dogmatic. If I have a conviction, well thought out, believing it to be Scriptural, I have the right to preach it without being called a false teacher. The latter is the important part.

Does this mean that you agree 100% with everyone that comes to your church, and those that you don't agree with are false teachers? You're coming over a bit strong aren't you? I can guarantee you that by that standard, everyone on this board is either a heretic or a false teacher, and would never be allowed to preach in your church. Every one has disagreements in doctrines no matter how minute they may be. Often we don't know what they are.

Honesty and exegetical integrity requires me to admit that women must wear a headcovering in the church. Should I lie about what I believe? I am not the false teacher here. I know in what I believve and I know why I believe it. Perhaps you haven't done a thorough enough study on the passage. It is a clearly revealed doctrine. I am sorry that you can't or won't see it. Often our own prejudices get in the way, and we don't want to change. I have said many times over, however, that just because that is my conviction, (as the KJV issue) it is not an issue to cause me to separate from my brethren.

As I said before I would be a hypocrite if I didn't. Truth is universal, not localized. If it is right for my wife, then it is right for yours. True? Or are you in your relativistic frame of mind where truth is not absolute. What is right for me is not right for you. That is hogwash. Truth is absolute. That is what the Bible teaches. Wearing headcoverings is a command of God. Not just for my wife, but for all Christian women. The Bible does not have my wife's name written there.

I doubt if anyone coming into your church would "mandate" headcoverings. How could they, if your the pastor?
DHK

 

Thanks, Joseph.
I am going to bookmark this. This link works, but for reasons I don't understand, I can't find anything at the top of the page or the forum home page that actually leads directly to this.

Karen