Should Doctrine matter?

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 </font>[/QUOTE]So then you allow women to prophesies? - Vs. 5

A women's hair is or isn't her glory - Vs. 15

What in the world do you do with Vs. 16?

Just curious

 

The vast majority of Bible student would doubt your objectivity in coming to the conclusion, but that is beside the point. As you well know, I have never told you not to believe that. I have said that you should present it as your opinion about a divided matter. If you believe in headcoverings as much as the virgin birth, there is something seriously wrong, IMO. I can't imagein any possible justification to compare a clearly revealed doctrine with a very obscure and rarely held interpretative view. But that is up to you.

What you cannot legitimately do is pretend that people who differ are disobedient. You cannot enforce your view on someone else, and that is what you are trying to do, or at least what the result of your position presented here is.

I don't have fellowship with you to break. I have said you are a false teacher because you teach something falsely. To insist that wearing headcoverings is the only way to be obedient is false. The passage does not say that and you know that. The issue in the passage is cimpletely different.

That is horribly offensive and totally false. It is outrageous for you to say that. I have plainly said you are welcome to belivee what you want and to teach and preach it. I even quoted my own statements on it above so you could see it again for yourself. For you to make this statement is beyond the pale.

This is why the headcovering argument never gets very far. Let's do better than this next time.

 

Uh, love IS a doctrine, but then you MUST explain, which love?

But for the record, the Holiness of God is the most prevailing doctrine, God is "dogmatic" about that!!!

"love" is an attribute of God/ Divine Love is expressed through His Holiness, else he isn't God and Christianity is a farce? NOT!!!

 

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. </font>[/QUOTE]I wouldn't suggest paul to have said anything any differently than what he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to say.

I didn't say you implied or claimed anything, but you must be careful how you present Scripture, else you're open to assumption.

Your reply indicated that you might have thought brotherly love, as mentioned in I Cor 13, somehow over-rides the Holiness of God, so either be more clear, or be quiet.

 

Spiritual head-covering is by the husband who is covered by Jesus; the wife is to remained "covered" by her husband, being in subjection, it is her umbrella of protection.

Physical head-covering is a preference, and is not mandated by any scripture. It is Baptistic in the regard to soul liberty of the believer to interpret any scripture any way they wish, of which the head-covering issue, physically, is therefore interpreted and is also practised by many Baptists.

It is a personal preference, but the passage in reference deals specifically with Jesus as the Head of the husband, and the husband the head of the wife, therefore the head is covered for the female, and the male is NOT covered by any physical being, only Christ, As the man has no need of any other covering.

 

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 [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, Karen.

You are right. Where would it end if we are all labeled "false teachers" because at some point we have disagreements.

We are all mistaken at some point or other, but "false teacher" should be limited to those who preach another gospel then the one "once for all delivered to the saints."

DHK is right to be offended by Larry. I know I would take offense if someone called me a "false teacher" because I believe in a post-trib rapture!

 

The vast majority of Bible student would doubt your objectivity in coming to the conclusion, but that is beside the point. As you well know, I have never told you not to believe that. I have said that you should present it as your opinion about a divided matter. If you believe in headcoverings as much as the virgin birth, there is something seriously wrong, IMO. I can't imagein any possible justification to compare a clearly revealed doctrine with a very obscure and rarely held interpretative view. But that is up to you.

What you cannot legitimately do is pretend that people who differ are disobedient. You cannot enforce your view on someone else, and that is what you are trying to do, or at least what the result of your position presented here is.

I don't have fellowship with you to break. I have said you are a false teacher because you teach something falsely. To insist that wearing headcoverings is the only way to be obedient is false. The passage does not say that and you know that. The issue in the passage is cimpletely different.

That is horribly offensive and totally false. It is outrageous for you to say that. I have plainly said you are welcome to belivee what you want and to teach and preach it. I even quoted my own statements on it above so you could see it again for yourself. For you to make this statement is beyond the pale.

This is why the headcovering argument never gets very far. Let's do better than this next time. </font>[/QUOTE]Larry, for clarification, when you teach dispensationalism to your church, do you teach it as "your opinion about a divided matter?"

Pre-trib rapture?

Regeneration before faith and repentance?

Cessation of sign gifts?

What issues are "your opinion about a divided matter" and what issues are "fundamentals" which are not opinions?

 

What exactly does that mean - "I'm open to assumption"?

I have no idea how you reached that conclusion. Maybe you're the one full of assumptions.

I like you. You're funny.

 

Uh, love IS a doctrine, but then you MUST explain, which love?

But for the record, the Holiness of God is the most prevailing doctrine, God is "dogmatic" about that!!!

"love" is an attribute of God/ Divine Love is expressed through His Holiness, else he isn't God and Christianity is a farce? NOT!!! </font>[/QUOTE]ha, Love is a doctrine, i didn't think of it that way, just then....good point

i agree with you that God's Holiness is the most prevalent doctrine, i usually harp on that fact because so many people forget it.

and the love is agape
Mat 19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt "agape" thy neighbour as thyself.

God not only loves us but he also loves righteousness

thankyou and God Bless

 

Yet I believe, if memory serves me correctly, that you had no problem labeling dispensationalism as a false teaching with clear implications about those who teach it.

Yes. I have said that there are people who disagree with me, who love God and his word. I have said that here many times, including in conversations with you.

Same.

I technically don't hold that regeneration precedes faith and repentance. On issues of soteriology, I am markedly more firm because of hte clarity of Scripture. Yet I acknolwedge that people who differ on certain points are still orthodox.

This is pretty clear in Scripture, but some charismatics are false teachers and some are not. I make those distinctions when I teach on that subject.

As I said (I think), it is related to 1) centrality to the core of the faith, and 2) clarity of expression in Scripture.

DHK has no reason to be offended at what I said. I tried to be very clear, and when my statement was misunderstood (and misrepresented), I tried to clarify it again. For the record, note that I applied the term "false teacher" in a very precise, narrow category. It referred to teaching opinion on an interpretative matter as authoritative for everyone else. It was not a reference to DHK's orthodoxy on matters of the faith. This is not a matter of the faith; it is a relatively minor point of interpretation about how submission is evidenced.

 

No, this is where you are wrong. I teach it as truth and not opinion. It is a matter of my faith, and therefore applicable to others. I would be a hypocrite if I did not say otherwise. BTW, According to 2Tim.3:16 No doctrine is minor, but: "all Scripture is inspired of God and is profitable..."
It is not opinion, except in your mind. It is not interpretation except in your mind. It is what I believe according to a proper exegesis of 1Cor.11. According to a proper exegesis of 1Cor.15, Christ arose from the dead. It is not just an opinion. It is what the Bible teaches. I do not teach opinions.
DHK

 

I have apologized to DHK privately for the way in which my comments were taken. My assertion of false teaching was directed, as I previously said, to a very narrow and precise issue of teaching matter of conscience as universal authority. It was not intended to question his orthodoxy in any way. Had I it to do over again, I would choose a different way to communicate my intent. My original foray into this was to comment on what I believed was DHK's overreaction to JohnV's post on page 1. Better words could have and should have been chosen.

 

You might also say that green is red. So what? Calling an opinion "truth" does not make it so. The truth of the passage is that women are to be in submission. Headcoverings were a first century way of showing that. Today, headcoverings are something far different. It is an application of the doctrine related to headship.

As you said, it is matter of "your" faith. That doesn't make it applicable to others.

No you wouldn't. You would be a hypocrite if you preached headcoverings and didn't do it. You are not a hypocrite to acknowledge that many, even most, disagree with your interpretation.

That is not exactly what 2 Tim 3:16 says. It says that all Scripture is profitable. It is not all equally profitable. The genealogies are a part of the profitable Scripture, but no one says they are equally profitable with John 3:16, or Romans 5.

Incorrect. It is your understanding of how to apply a passage in the modern times. Your understanding ... That is not a mandate for everyone else. If you think it is, then you have way too high an opinion of your own thinking ability.

Most would not agree with you here.

Apples and skyscrapers, as we have already pointed out. You can say that headcoverings and the resurrection are equal doctrines, just as you can say that red is green. Neither is true. You have just put the vast majority of historical Christianity in teh category of infidels because you say they deny somethign as important as the resurrection.

Yes you do. We all do. We should admit it when we do.

 

You might also say that green is red. So what? Calling an opinion "truth" does not make it so. The truth of the passage is that women are to be in submission. Headcoverings were a first century way of showing that. Today, headcoverings are something far different. It is an application of the doctrine related to headship.
</font>[/QUOTE]Why can't you just get past this Larry? Ask Paul if believing in post-trib is just opinion? It is the same thing. Disagreement with you (for the other person) is just opinion. No, it is Biblical truth. I have said over and over again, in this thread, you have the right to disagree. I won't argue with you. It is called soul liberty. I won't call you a false teacher. I won't break fellowship with you. If you believe in pre-trib, or don't want to believe in head-coverings I won't fault you for it. All I ask is the right to believe what I believe is truth according to the Scripture (not mere opinion), without being called a false teacher. Is that too much to ask?
DHK

 

Larry,

Are you not able to distinguish between false teaching and calling someone a false teacher?

I think dispensationalism is wrong. I don't think it makes sense. I believe it is false. But I don't think you are a "false teacher" for believing and teaching it!

"False Teachers" in the Bible does not apply to folks who disagree about this or that. It applies to those who subvert the gospel!

The "narrow" way you used "false teacher" to describe DHK is still wrong. DHK is not a false teacher.

I appreciate the discussion, but why can't you just apologize to DHK?

The Biblical writers do not use "false teacher" the way you did. I think you should admit it and apologize, and say, "I'm sorry I was misunderstood. I didn't mean to paint with such a broad brush and I can understand how DHK might be offended." You could then say, "DHK is not a false teacher in the way that phrase is used in the NT."

 

Is it too much to ask that not misrepresent what I said? I don't think so, but so far, that has fallen on deaf ears. Communication in modern society is at an all time low because of this kind of thing. You probably know that if you properly presented what I said, you would have no beef, because I said nothign wrong. You have simply over-reacted and read more into then was there.

You say, All I ask is the right to believe what I believe is truth according to the Scripture (not mere opinion), without being called a false teacher. My answer is absolutely. And if you have actually paid attention to what I said previously, you already know this. My statement about false teaching had nothing to do with what you believe. It had to do with your application of your beliefs as a mandate for everyone else on a matter of conscience. That is where you went wreong. If I insisted that everyone be pretrib to be obedient, I would be wrong.

If this is clearly revealed biblical truth, then you are dead wrong to grant me liberty to disagree. Soul libert does not apply to clearly revealed truths. That is a common mistake. Let's not make it.

In the end, as I have said, I don't care what you believe about headcoverings. However, you should not insist that everyone needs to follow your conscience to be obedient.

 

Larry,

I hadn't read all the way through before posting my last. Thanks for your kind spirit.

 

Now to DHK,

Clearly Larry and I disagree with you. We see "headcovering" as a practice of the church in Corinth, as in all the churches that Paul was familiar with.

We believe the principle is "submission and respect" and the application is "headcoverings" for that culture.

How do we show humility to each other when we are so certain that we only preach doctrine and never "opinions?"

 

Actually, when you see who is in the geneologies, they make John 3:16 come to life! I think Matthew 1 is very important!

 

Perhaps you are playing a game of semantics; I don't know. But if I beieved in dispensationalism as strongly as you do, and likewise pre-tribulationalsim, I would have no trouble preaching it in other people's churches, in other venues, as the truth of God's Word that all people should accept as the truth of God's Word, because it is truth.
I know what I believe and why I believe it.
Those aren't opinions. They (to me) are valid Biblical truths. I teach them as such. Others have the right to disagree without me labelling them as false teachers. I have repeatedly said that. Paul has pointed that out. I would be a hypocrite if I didn't preach what I believed to be the truth of God's Word, whereever I went. When Paul said: "I have not shunned to declare unto you the whole counsel of God, was that only applicable to the Ephesian elders? Or do you think he might have had the same testimony to the Corinthians, to Timothy, to the Philippians and others as well. It is our obligation to preach the whole counsel of God to all; not just to our own congregation. It is not opinion that I preach. I know what I believe, and why I believe it.
DHK