Should Doctrine matter?

Karen,

The link is at the very bottom of every page.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Dear DHK,
I think you are making too much of the term false teacher.
All it means to me is that on a particular point of doctrine or belief, you are wrong, therefore teaching falsely on that particular point.
It does not mean that you are necessarily teaching falsely on other things.
We are all false teachers on some things and we teach correctly on others. But if we understood perfectly and were sinless we would not be false teachers on any point.

Karen

 

Well, thanks!
I didn't see that for some reason. I have been clicking on everything imaginable for a long time.

Karen

 

2 Peter 2:1-2 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

The Bible does not speak kindly of false teachers.

 

I am surprised that it took 5 pages for someone to say that. There is a difference between someone doing some small thing and someone being labeled as an overall characteristic. I have been known to break the speed limit and technically that makes me a criminal but, does it put me in the same category as full time, career criminals who make their living at it. If so then we are all liars, thieves, false teachers, basketball players, artists, belly dancers, cooks, etc., etc. etc. Anything I have ever done would make me one of them (as a characteristic).

If someone teaches something that is false technically that makes them a false teacher. However, we generally reserve the term "false teacher" to someone who is teaching things that are contrary to salvation (salvation by works, deniakl of Christ's deity, etc.)

"What you are teaching is false."
"You are a false teacher!"

Two entirely different concepts.

 

Let me restate the OP, at least in part, by Paladin:

Some of the problems involved:
The church in question is a Charismatic church with questionable doctrines, "a second baptism of the Holy Spirit," specifically mentioned.

A link was provided on the church website to the Charismatic website which implicitly condoned the teaching of this Charismatic website.

Some of the teachings gleaned from this website were being used in the SBC church for Sunday School, even though the doctrines were highly questionable.

Thus the question arises: Where does separation come in? At what point does one stand up and say enough is enough, we won't tolerate this any more.

The question of pants and headcverings should have never entered into this conversation. It had nothing to do with it.
The doctrine specifically mentioned was "a second baptism of the Holy Spirit," which gives one an idea of what kind of church it is.
Charismatic churches are generally experienced based, basing their doctrine on experience rather than the Word of God. They seek after experience and tend to emphasize experience over the Word of God. This is the error that the Charismatics are wrapped up in--some of it (like Oneness Pentecostal) is heretical, since they require tongues for salvation. Beware of the doctrines of the Charismatic movement. Have nothing to do with them. This is one area where a Baptist Church has an obvious cause for separation.

A New Evangelical tele-evangelist glibly prayed: "Oh God deliver us from doctrine." Doctrine is sacrificed on the altar of unity. Unity has become more important than doctrine. And yet Paul warned Timothy to take heed to the doctrine.
DHK

 

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. </font>[/QUOTE]Again, Paul, like DHK's example this is completely different. To say that Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father is a clear biblical command. To say anything else would be false teaching. Headcoverings are a completely different issue.

 

"At that point", we weren't. So what?</font>[/QUOTE]At a minimum, it shows your assertion against me was wrong. You said I used that in a conversation about doctrine when I didn't. I used it in reference to a statement I made, that you quoted, and then you said I didn't say it. Or however it worked. I don't remember it all and it is too silly to go back and look up.

No it's not. You are being a little oversensitive here.

Even so, it was still incorrect. Limiting your quote doesn't change the fact that your comment was wrong.

Yes, but again, Paul does not make such a distinction. In fact, in Eph 4:15, he says that truth must be spoken in love. There he puts them together, as should you. Love is not more important than doctrine.

I disagree. I'm not saying that God is not displeased with error, but God looks on the heart.</font>[/QUOTE]But that is irrelevant, because a heart that doesn't stand for right doctrine is a disobedient heart, and God sees that. Love is not an excuse for being wrong.

It may be simple, but it is also incorrect. If you tell someone with love that cyanide won't kill them, does that make it better? If you are very loving when you tell Muslims they are on their way to heaven, does that help? Of course not. Love is not more important than doctrine, and doctrine is not more important than love.

Because it is talking about a different issue. It is talking about relationships.

You are really reaching here to try to justify your comment. Scripture won't support it.

 

False teacher and heretic are terms that should not be tossed around lightly or in jest. Words have meaning, they can be very spiteful or they can be healing. I can say "Brother, I don't believe what you say is scriptual". I may be correct, but that does not make that brother a false teacher or heretic, unless as has been previously stated it is a matter of salvation, the Sovereignty of God, the Doctrine of the Trinity, Virgin Birth and things of that nature. Paul does in fact teach that women should keep their head covered to honor their husband, who must keep his head uncovered to honor the true Head of the Church and family (1 Corinthians Chapter 11).

As DHK said, this is not a matter of fellowship. If you say this is not Biblical then prove it. If I say it is Biblical I must prove it which I have. Read the verses yourself, then tell me that Paul is not teaching that and I will say you are wrong, but I will not call you a false teacher or heretic, neither would I break fellowship with you .

I think that DHK has been attacked somewhat harshly, and is owed an apology. He stated all along that he does not consider this issue a matter of fellowship, and used it to make a larger point about the OP.

When we disagree, as Christians, it is incumbent on us to do so in love. That trait seems to be lacking in many of the posts on this and other forums. It is a sad commentary on us as Christians that we accuse one another of very serious charges, and then react even more viciously when that person attempts to clarify his position.

 

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. </font>[/QUOTE]Again, Paul, like DHK's example this is completely different. To say that Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father is a clear biblical command. To say anything else would be false teaching. Headcoverings are a completely different issue. </font>[/QUOTE]It is only different because we don't believe "headcoverings" is normative for today.

DHK is right when he says that this is a command of Scripture.

The interpretive issue is to ask if this is a command for "all" the churches, or just the church at Corinth. And if it is a command for "all" the churches, is it for all the churches in Greece or all the churches throughout the Roman empire. And of course, one might want to discern if it applies to churches that develop in different cultures and in different times.

The trick with normative/cultural questions is that this hermeneutic might be misapplied to other issues. Where does it end? Was the great commission just for the disciples? the early church? the apostles? Does it apply to us today?

In the south, many of the independent fundamental Baptist churches practiced "headcoverings" for women.

If DHK is correct, that headcoverings are normative throughout all ages and cultures, then he would be right to teach the way he does. And the rest of us would be in disobedience.

If he is wrong, that headcoverings are indeed cultural, and that what is important is that our churches recognize that women are in respectful submission to the authority of their husbands, then DHK would be mistaken, but he would hardly be a false teacher.

My analogy was meant to point out how easily our hermeneutic can "appear" to be relativistic. We had better explain carefully why it isn't when we argue as Larry did.

Is it a doctrine or is it a practice? The text seems to indicate that it was a practice. That fact might provide the key to understanding the text, and Larry may be correct when he speaks of it being an application of a principle.

[ July 26, 2005, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: Paul33 ]

 

Head covering is an interesting point. When I was growing up in an SBC church the only people around who practiced this were the Catholics. This was never practiced in my church and has never been practiced in any Baptist church I have belonged to or attended since (all toll over 50 years).

Has anyone here actually seen head covering practiced in a Baptist church?

 

Here’s the bottom line DHK and I am done here. I typed quite a long response and the board wouldn't take it. So you are lucky ... you are missing the meat of the issue. I will summarize.

1. Headcoverings is not a clear command of Scripture. If you study the context and look for the real issue, you will see it is submission, not headcoverings. Paul’s teaching about headcoverings was because of how submission was demonstrated. That has to be remembered. I believe you have missed that.

2. Doctrine is absolute; application is not. There are some things right for you that are wrong for me, such as going home to your wife. You will very quickly agree that the application of the doctrine is not the same. You will see that what is right for you is not right for me. That is an issue of application.

3. To teach in a church, one ought to have agreement on the core issues, and substantial agreement on others. But we need to be humble and admit that one issues of liberty of conscience, we can disagree. That is what you are not doing. And that is why you are crossing the line of false teaching. You need to admit that there are others ways to read the passage and apply it. You cannot insist that your way is the only way.

In the end, I don’t care what you believe about headcoverings. You should teach whatever you believe. But you should say that there are other ways to apply the passage.

 

Speaking in tongues is cultural?
Healing the sick is cultural?
Prophesying is cultural?

This is amazing. Headcoverings is normative, but the work of the Spirit is cultural!

Or, the work of the Spirit at Corinth was descriptive of that church, but it is not prescriptive for today's church! Amazing.

Yes, I know all about dispensationalism and the cessation of the sign gifts.

No, being a charismatic who believes in the power, work, and signs of the Holy Spirit in the church is not someone we should want to separate from just because we haven't experienced it ourselves.

 

Paladin,

Your pastor is either a charismatic who is slowly transforming the church to his ways or he is just spineless and therefore he won't confront the youth guy. I don't see how he could keep using that material without the pastor's consent? They are probably in cahoots.
Or if he is a jelly fish it could be that some charismatics are working their way into the church and the pastor is just job scared so he plays along.
There is a small but growing faction of SB churches that are charismatic. I believe that dude down in Chatanooga is leading the way. I forget his name but he has a TV show and everything. What is his name? As far as I know he hasn't been told to leave the convention? Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe somebody knows who I'm talking about his name is Ron something.
Anyway Paladin I couldn't stand to be in a church where the pastor is afraid to lead or whatever.
If you don't want to take a stand then let em have their church. Go find a BAPTIST church.

 

His name is Ron Phillips. Not my favorite preacher, that's for sure, but he has a book called "Awakened by the Spirit" that I believe every Southern Baptist should read. (Of course, everyone here will say "No, you shouldn't read it". But it's up to you.) www.ronphillips.org

 

You have been missing this all along. I have consistently said from the beginning that I stick the Baptistic distinctive of soul liberty. We each have the right to disagree with each other over such issues without making them an issue of separation. Where have I ever said otherwisse. It is not me that am calling others heretics and false teachers; it is others such as you and John that are calling me a false teacher because I want to exercise my right, my soul liberty, to preach my convictions. I find that reprehensible.

Here is how you are coming across to me:
Whether it be Calvinism or Arminianism;
Pretrib or Postrib;
King James or Modern Versions;
headcvering or no headcovering;

If one does not agree with Magesterioum of Pastor Larry and his catechism they are to be excommunicateed, and proclaimed: anethama--false teachers and heretics. There is no soul liberty in your sight. Either "believe as I believe or I'll shoot you. Death is your only ultimatum."

You are acting more like the Catholics of the Dark Ages than a Baptist. You insist on calling me a false teacher because I insist on teaching and preaching what I believe to be true from the Bible: whether it be the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, or the virgin birth, or a woman wearing a head-covering. There is no difference. In your eyes I am only allowed to preach the doctrines that Pope Larry agrees with; not the ones that he disagrees with, otherwise I am a heretic. That is pure Catholicism. I used to be there. Agree or be excommunicated. I got saved and came out of that system over 30 years ago.
DHK

 

Well, I guess I have learned something. I did not realize the term "false teacher" would be considered so opprobrious.
To me it just has seemed that any teacher teaches falsely on some points. Because no one has perfect knowledge. Some one could teach falsely, be a false teacher, on some points and not on others.
I will take your word for it, and I will say that DHK is my brother in Christ.

Karen

 

without Doctrine Love is irrelevent, and Without Love Doctrine is irrevelent. For in the Bible itself it says to Love and it also says to guard Doctrine. Doctrine and Love, like the shoes on my feet i can go farther with Both, than i can with just one. and in this case i guess in Heaven.....no shoes no service?


thankyou and God Bless

 

This is so clearly false as to make me curious why you would say it. In fact, I think I explained this very thing in one of my posts, that it has nothing to do with agreeing with me. I am not the standard. The Bible is the standard, and that is why I grant liberty about the things that Bible is not clear about. I have never insisted that my way is the only way. You should not say otherwise.

You know better.

Not at all. Go back and looked what I said you were teaching falsely. It is not nearly the reason you give here and you should know that. I said you were teaching falsely becuase you were teaching your opinion as an absolute fact. You were not giving room for others to disagree with you. I know you said you did, but when you say someone is disobedient for not wearing a headcovering, you are making a categorical statement. You are not saying IMO, they are disobedient, or I think they are disobedient. That would have been acceptable.

How can you say there is no difference between teh first two and the last one? Do you really think that?

Totally and completely false. I have said you can and should preach what you believe. For you to say otherwise was dishoneset, DHK. Why would you do that? You are better than that. You know that I never tried to dictate what you can preach. I can't understand why you would say that I did. I explicitly said differently.

Here is what I have said in this thread about this topic. The second includes your statement, to show the context of what I was agreeing with. By reading these, you can see that your statement in your last post to me was false and should not have been made. I have never tried to dictate to you not the preach your conscience. I have never been in the least bit "Catholic" towards you. I have plainly said you can and should teach what you believe.

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.</font>[/QUOTE]

No it's not. Catholicism is something completely different, and is off the topic here.

 

This is the crux of the matter. In as much as I believe the virgin birth, I believe that women ought to wear headcoverings. It is not an opinion up for sale. It is a fact, a conviction, a belief that is baased on honest objective study of the Word of God. That is what I have been saying all along. If you want to disagree with me that is your perogative. I won't call you a heretic or break fellowship with you.
But you said that you will break fellowship with me and have called me a false teacher. There is a Baptist Distinctive called soul liberty, and apparently you don't believe it.
DHK