Should Doctrine matter?

If you check the ASV, most of the time that the word "doctrine" is used it is translated "teaching." That is what doctrine is.
Often I say: "Though others believe...this is what I believe the Bible teaches." And I don't believe I am teaching opinion.
Or, "Good men in the past have disagreed on this controversial passage, but this is what I believe to be the correct rendering:" Again, if I have done my homework properly, I will not be preaching simple opinion.
DHK

 

I think Matthew 1 is important, just not quite as "profitable" as some other passages. Gen 5 and 1 Chron 1-9 are lengthy geneologies that I think we would be hard pressed to say are equal with some other passages.

If I was preaching in the church that was pretrib, I would preach it. If I was preaching at a place where I was asked to preach, I would preach it. If I was preaching at a posttrib church, I would preach something else. There is certainly plenty of other things to preach. I think I am right on that issue (obviously). But I could be wrong. But there is a difference between that and explicit revelation. I teach pretrib as truth, without apology, but not without humility.

 

I can agree with that stand.
We invited a guest speaker to speak in our church. Unfortunately he was KJVO, a stand we do not take, and he knew it. He forcefully spoke on that issue (possibly out of spite), knowing full well we didn't take that stand. He will never be invited back again. Yes, humility is key. I don't beat any issue like a dead horse.
DHK

 

I can agree with that stand.
We invited a guest speaker to speak in our church. Unfortunately he was KJVO, a stand we do not take, and he knew it. He forcefully spoke on that issue (possibly out of spite), knowing full well we didn't take that stand. He will never be invited back again. Yes, humility is key. I don't beat any issue like a dead horse.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Presumptuous sins are the detriment of all societies, it may be the Lord sent the preacher your way as a means of a trial, but it seems you have failed that trial because of your presumption.

Presupposing it is called. If you knew he was "KJVO", then you shouldn't have asked him to come, or at least checked him out better first, that is if you have something against being "KJVO".

It seems there are those who are divided against the "KJVO", but instead they are the ones who accuse the "KJVO" of being the dividers, when at least, they, being the "KJVO", take a stand.

The reason the "KJVO" crowd will outlast those opposed to the teaching, is they are not divided against themselves.

Any kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.

 

Yes, it does seem some confuse humility with compromise, either you're "pre-trib", or you really don't believe in "pre-trib" and you believe something diametrically opposed to God's clear teaching.

 

As a missionary I have had the opportunity to preach in a wide variety of churches. I tend to stay away from divisive issues such as the KJVO issue. There is no need to unneccessarily divide the brethren. It is not even ethical to deliberatley preach what you know to be contrary to another pastor's stand in his church. As Larry pointed out, there are plenty of other things in the Bible, why be divisive. The same would go for headcoverings, wearing of pants, etc. As a missionary that would not be my purpose. Nor is it my purpose to confuse the members on the pastor's stand (whatever it may be) on eschatological matters, unless he has asked me as an evangelist to speak specifically on the latter days or eschatology.
Jesus said: "Be wise as serpents but harmless as doves."
Do what you are called to do. None of us are deliberately called to be divisive. And at the same time all of us are called to contend for the faith. When asked we don't back down from what we believe in, but state it without apology. I am not going to go around in circles, being evasive about the truth. Come out and say what you believe.
DHK

 

Pator Larry, what you are saying sounds like situational ethics and relativism to me. If a thing is wrong for one (I am speaking in a Biblical sense here) then it is wrong for all God does not have one set of rules for one and a different set for another.

 

As a missionary I have had the opportunity to preach in a wide variety of churches. I tend to stay away from divisive issues such as the KJVO issue. There is no need to unneccessarily divide the brethren. It is not even ethical to deliberatley preach what you know to be contrary to another pastor's stand in his church. As Larry pointed out, there are plenty of other things in the Bible, why be divisive. The same would go for headcoverings, wearing of pants, etc. As a missionary that would not be my purpose. Nor is it my purpose to confuse the members on the pastor's stand (whatever it may be) on eschatological matters, unless he has asked me as an evangelist to speak specifically on the latter days or eschatology.
Jesus said: "Be wise as serpents but harmless as doves."
Do what you are called to do. None of us are deliberately called to be divisive. And at the same time all of us are called to contend for the faith. When asked we don't back down from what we believe in, but state it without apology. I am not going to go around in circles, being evasive about the truth. Come out and say what you believe.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]I agree totally with what Jesus said, but He also said he didn't come to bring peace (between religious counsels), but to bring a sword: that which divides by cutting apart from, get this, from the superfluity of the flesh.

I would never deliberately step into another man's pulpit and preach something I KNEW he didn't, I would rather not preach for him at all, and wouldn't. I would be certain we both stood the same, FIRST.

The "KJVO" issue doesn't divide, it's the issue made about one being "KJVO" by those opposed to it that causes the division, you said so yourself.

I'm not divided against anyone who believes the Bible, but when they try to convince me that the Bible doesn't say something it clearly does, I separate from that ill-meaning brother.

I don't separate from those who use other versions, they end up separating from me.

It seems if I won't adhere to their acceptance of the other versions, they start slandering me by all sorts of accusations similar to those they have confronted before.

It seems when one wishes to be dogmatic about literal issues, the "dog" only comes back to bite them when they forget the spiritual aspect of any passage; inclusive of the issue of head-coverings.

Reality and present day society do align themselves with one another, but then the Word of God tells us all the same thing, no matter how society changes.

Also, I would never particpate in this "ecclesiastical/ political" arena associated with the "brethren". I don't belong to the "brethren", I belong to He Who bought me with His own Blood, the man Christ Jesus. I've learned to stand alone with Jesus beside me, no matter what other brethren think.

The Truth is that sword that does divide. It divides error from Truth, every time.