Is it OK to question church doctrine?
- Thread starter Blik
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Never trust in any man or any so called church. Any church worth attaching oneself too, should be in total agreement with the doctrines you have learned from Scripture. The early church, was said to be of "one mind". Act 2:42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers. The early churches were admonished to stay of "one mind". Php_2:2 make full my joy, that ye be of the same mind, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind;
True believers who are applying themselves will be as the Bereans, examining everything that was said against Scripture: Act_17:11 Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so. Any true man of God, called to be a pastor, will appreciate his flock being so diligent.
And don't forget the warnings given by our Lord himself:
Rev 2:15-16 So hast thou also some that hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans in like manner. Repent therefore; or else I come to thee quickly, and I will make war against them with the sword of my mouth.
Rev 3:1-2 And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars: I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and thou art dead. Be thou watchful, and establish the things that remain, which were ready to die: for I have found no works of thine perfected before my God.
Rev 3:14-16 And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God: I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So because thou art lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew thee out of my mouth.
Things were so bad in Laodicea, the Lord was not even in the church. He was outside and invited those that had hearing ears to come out of this church: Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. (Note, how the Lord will come into the one who is hearing His voice and not into the church itself). Many believe that each one of the seven churches represent churches during certain periods of time. Since the Laodicean church is the last one recorded in Revelation, would it be a stretch to say that most churches, in these last days, are Laodicean?
True believers who are applying themselves will be as the Bereans, examining everything that was said against Scripture: Act_17:11 Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so. Any true man of God, called to be a pastor, will appreciate his flock being so diligent.
And don't forget the warnings given by our Lord himself:
Rev 2:15-16 So hast thou also some that hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans in like manner. Repent therefore; or else I come to thee quickly, and I will make war against them with the sword of my mouth.
Rev 3:1-2 And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars: I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and thou art dead. Be thou watchful, and establish the things that remain, which were ready to die: for I have found no works of thine perfected before my God.
Rev 3:14-16 And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God: I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So because thou art lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew thee out of my mouth.
Things were so bad in Laodicea, the Lord was not even in the church. He was outside and invited those that had hearing ears to come out of this church: Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. (Note, how the Lord will come into the one who is hearing His voice and not into the church itself). Many believe that each one of the seven churches represent churches during certain periods of time. Since the Laodicean church is the last one recorded in Revelation, would it be a stretch to say that most churches, in these last days, are Laodicean?
I did not go to the Lord seeking forgiveness. He came to me, and gave it.
-
1
- Show all
There is a difference between "unfounded" and "You haven't provided the evidence for your assertions"; don't confuse them. I don't see a need to quote Scripture when I say, "That's not in Scripture". I don't believe I need to quote a verse that you have referenced.
Yes, I do post generalized statements, such as "Your view makes Jesus' sacrifice irrelevant". Do I need to quote Scripture at length to spell out the implications of His sacrifice? Or do you understand the breadth of Scripture well enough to understand what I am saying? Well, respectfully, maybe you don't.
When I am addressing a particular point related to (or clearly supported by) a particular verse or a few verses, I will quote them.
I appreciate your explanation.
Yes, I do post generalized statements, such as "Your view makes Jesus' sacrifice irrelevant". Do I need to quote Scripture at length to spell out the implications of His sacrifice? Or do you understand the breadth of Scripture well enough to understand what I am saying? Well, respectfully, maybe you don't.
When I am addressing a particular point related to (or clearly supported by) a particular verse or a few verses, I will quote them.
I appreciate your explanation.
This is what I believe, but in today's world that is very difficult. We have had so many men who interpreted scripture and told us of their man made interpretations, and these men have so convinced the church of their correctness that separating man's interpretation from what God tells us frankly and to the point is very difficult.
We see darkly, at best. It even requires our clear thinking to accept the simplicity of the Lord.
The first churches went to the apostles when they had questions, then to the men who were trained by the apostles. Almost immediately there were heretics who preached their interpretation. That gave Constantine an excuse for a council to clear out and teach only one interpretation of scripture, adding his antisemitism interpretation to the church.
Now, all these laws the church has is dividing the church into denominations with different laws for each. The unity and love together has escaped the church, now we have denominations.
We see darkly, at best. It even requires our clear thinking to accept the simplicity of the Lord.
The first churches went to the apostles when they had questions, then to the men who were trained by the apostles. Almost immediately there were heretics who preached their interpretation. That gave Constantine an excuse for a council to clear out and teach only one interpretation of scripture, adding his antisemitism interpretation to the church.
Now, all these laws the church has is dividing the church into denominations with different laws for each. The unity and love together has escaped the church, now we have denominations.
Do you believe that women are allowed to speak in the assembly? Certainly you do not believe they are allowed to preach?
1Co 14:33-38 for God is not a God of confusion, but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church. What? was it from you that the word of God went forth? or came it unto you alone? If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord. But if any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant.
1Ti 2:11-12 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.
Do you take exception with the Word of God?
1Co 14:33-38 for God is not a God of confusion, but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church. What? was it from you that the word of God went forth? or came it unto you alone? If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord. But if any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant.
1Ti 2:11-12 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.
Do you take exception with the Word of God?
Agree.. no one man has all the Truth of God, nor can he have. It will take all of eternity to understand the Truth of God and then we still won't have it all. The Truth of God is likened to a sphere. What God has revealed in His Word to the Saints, (Holy Bible), is one-half of the sphere. This portion of Truth can be ascertained through study and the guidance of the Spirit but not to the extent it is perfect. However, it can be known to the extent it gives one "conviction". The other half of the sphere is God's unrevealed knowledge. This is the area where even the angels fear to tread.
If one goes through the Scriptures, that one will find no Biblical evidence for denominations. Each church or assembly is autonomous and directly answerable to the Lord and no one else.
If one goes through the Scriptures, that one will find no Biblical evidence for denominations. Each church or assembly is autonomous and directly answerable to the Lord and no one else.
Yes, I believe that women are allowed to speak in the assembly; three chapters earlier, Paul had women speaking (praying and prophesying) in the assembly. I take the portion from "Let the women" to "speak in the church" to be a quotation to which Paul then says, "What? Was it from you that the word of God went forth?" That makes far more sense to me, especially since I looked in vain for a commandment in the Law saying, "Let women be in subjection" or "Let women be silent".
I also believe they are allowed to preach, because I take Paul's instruction to Timothy in its cultural context, and about a woman (singular and therefore specific!). He is actually permitting females to undertake the same instruction that men take, in the same manner, and upon completion of adequate training, they would be released to teach and preach. As for "have dominion", nobody should be "having dominion" over anyone else in the church, and again there is a cultural explanation that makes perfect sense.
What I take exception to is people who take verses, divorce them from their context, don't study any further, and try to make broadly-impacting doctrinal assertions.
I also believe they are allowed to preach, because I take Paul's instruction to Timothy in its cultural context, and about a woman (singular and therefore specific!). He is actually permitting females to undertake the same instruction that men take, in the same manner, and upon completion of adequate training, they would be released to teach and preach. As for "have dominion", nobody should be "having dominion" over anyone else in the church, and again there is a cultural explanation that makes perfect sense.
What I take exception to is people who take verses, divorce them from their context, don't study any further, and try to make broadly-impacting doctrinal assertions.
-
2
- Show all
Here is your statement from post #115: "Yes the scriptures teach that the preaching of the gospel is to be preached to only those that can discern the things of the Spirit, his sheep,1 Cor 2:14. The purpose in preaching to the lost sheep (lost from a knowledge of God's righteousness) is that they are new born babes in Christ that are getting fed the milk of the word, and are in need of being taught the meat of the word. Isaiah 28:9-10."
And another from post #117: "Newborn babes in Christ are delivered (saved) eternally in a covenant relationship with the Godhead, but as they are nourished in their growth process, being taught about the righteousness of God (the gospel), they are delivered (saved) from that lack of knowledge.
Rom 10:1-3, Israel, surname Jacob who is representative of God's elect from every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation. were still babes in Christ when Paul was praying that they would be delivered (saved) from a lack of knowledge of God's righteousness, and were going about trying to establish their own righteousness through the works of the old law. "
According to these statements, there is no time at which "babes in Christ" were in need of salvation from their sins, because, as you claim, they are "saved eternally in a covenant relationship with the Godhead". Salvation, according to your statements, does not require any sacrifice on Jesus' part, nor any repentance on the part of those who are saved. Those who are saved are saved eternally and need only learn (thereby being "delivered from a lack of knowledge of God's righteousness"), and those who are unsaved are, by implication, irredeemable. So, because the saved don't need their sin dealt with, and the rest are doomed anyway, Jesus' death on the cross is irrelevant.
That's heresy, by the way.
You accused me of making unfounded assertions, in post #120.
Shallow? How about "concise"? This isn't a forum for dissertations. However, I will endeavour to be more thorough in my responses, as I have above.
And another from post #117: "Newborn babes in Christ are delivered (saved) eternally in a covenant relationship with the Godhead, but as they are nourished in their growth process, being taught about the righteousness of God (the gospel), they are delivered (saved) from that lack of knowledge.
Rom 10:1-3, Israel, surname Jacob who is representative of God's elect from every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation. were still babes in Christ when Paul was praying that they would be delivered (saved) from a lack of knowledge of God's righteousness, and were going about trying to establish their own righteousness through the works of the old law. "
According to these statements, there is no time at which "babes in Christ" were in need of salvation from their sins, because, as you claim, they are "saved eternally in a covenant relationship with the Godhead". Salvation, according to your statements, does not require any sacrifice on Jesus' part, nor any repentance on the part of those who are saved. Those who are saved are saved eternally and need only learn (thereby being "delivered from a lack of knowledge of God's righteousness"), and those who are unsaved are, by implication, irredeemable. So, because the saved don't need their sin dealt with, and the rest are doomed anyway, Jesus' death on the cross is irrelevant.
That's heresy, by the way.
You accused me of making unfounded assertions, in post #120.
Shallow? How about "concise"? This isn't a forum for dissertations. However, I will endeavour to be more thorough in my responses, as I have above.
Yes, Christ's death on the cross is most definitely relevant, because there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood.
The blood of bulls and goats was not effective in forgiving sins, but the perfect lamb of God was.
Where you and I differ is my view of limited atonement.
If I am understanding you right, your interpretation of the word "all" in John 6:39 is "all mankind", and my interpretation of the word is that it is limited to God's sheep (his elect before the foundation of the world,) that will hear his voice, Acts 10:27-28.
John 6:44 tells us who he will raise up at the last day, and it is those that come to him by the drawing of God's power. Isaiah 65:12-13 tells us who does not come to him because when he spoke they did not hear his voice, and why they did not hear, was because they were not his sheep, his elect. Jacob/surname Israel. Only his sheep hear his voice. The unregenerate natural man, as described in 1 Cor 2:14 can not hear his voice, to understand it, and thinks it to be foolishness.
The saved eternally, although Jesus paid for their sins on the cross, and they are secured a home in heaven, after they have been born again sometime between their natural birth and their natural death, because of their sinful nature that stays with them in the new birth, do at times still yield their bodies to the temptations of this world, and are commanded, by God, to repent, not to get eternal life, because they already have eternal life through the blood of Jesus, but to regain their fellowship with God. as they sojourn here in this world.
This reasoning comes through the correct understanding of these words in there Greek meaning; salvation=deliverance, save=deliver, saved=delivered. There is referenced in the scriptures an eternal deliverance, and there is referenced in the scriptures many deliverances that we receive as regenerated people, as we sojourn here in this world.
The blood of bulls and goats was not effective in forgiving sins, but the perfect lamb of God was.
Where you and I differ is my view of limited atonement.
If I am understanding you right, your interpretation of the word "all" in John 6:39 is "all mankind", and my interpretation of the word is that it is limited to God's sheep (his elect before the foundation of the world,) that will hear his voice, Acts 10:27-28.
John 6:44 tells us who he will raise up at the last day, and it is those that come to him by the drawing of God's power. Isaiah 65:12-13 tells us who does not come to him because when he spoke they did not hear his voice, and why they did not hear, was because they were not his sheep, his elect. Jacob/surname Israel. Only his sheep hear his voice. The unregenerate natural man, as described in 1 Cor 2:14 can not hear his voice, to understand it, and thinks it to be foolishness.
The saved eternally, although Jesus paid for their sins on the cross, and they are secured a home in heaven, after they have been born again sometime between their natural birth and their natural death, because of their sinful nature that stays with them in the new birth, do at times still yield their bodies to the temptations of this world, and are commanded, by God, to repent, not to get eternal life, because they already have eternal life through the blood of Jesus, but to regain their fellowship with God. as they sojourn here in this world.
This reasoning comes through the correct understanding of these words in there Greek meaning; salvation=deliverance, save=deliver, saved=delivered. There is referenced in the scriptures an eternal deliverance, and there is referenced in the scriptures many deliverances that we receive as regenerated people, as we sojourn here in this world.
Yes, I believe that women are allowed to speak in the assembly; three chapters earlier, Paul had women speaking (praying and prophesying) in the assembly. I take the portion from "Let the women" to "speak in the church" to be a quotation to which Paul then says, "What? Was it from you that the word of God went forth?" That makes far more sense to me, especially since I looked in vain for a commandment in the Law saying, "Let women be in subjection" or "Let women be silent".
I also believe they are allowed to preach, because I take Paul's instruction to Timothy in its cultural context, and about a woman (singular and therefore specific!). He is actually permitting females to undertake the same instruction that men take, in the same manner, and upon completion of adequate training, they would be released to teach and preach. As for "have dominion", nobody should be "having dominion" over anyone else in the church, and again there is a cultural explanation that makes perfect sense.
What I take exception to is people who take verses, divorce them from their context, don't study any further, and try to make broadly-impacting doctrinal assertions.
I also believe they are allowed to preach, because I take Paul's instruction to Timothy in its cultural context, and about a woman (singular and therefore specific!). He is actually permitting females to undertake the same instruction that men take, in the same manner, and upon completion of adequate training, they would be released to teach and preach. As for "have dominion", nobody should be "having dominion" over anyone else in the church, and again there is a cultural explanation that makes perfect sense.
What I take exception to is people who take verses, divorce them from their context, don't study any further, and try to make broadly-impacting doctrinal assertions.
1Ti 2:13-14 For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression:
Scripture teaches both in Genesis and here that the the woman is more prone to being mislead. This doesn't go over well today. It was well excepted in most churches until the "woman's liberation movement" of the late 50's and 60s. Churches began to placate women and their position in the church because of what women saw as inequalities in society.
The law that Paul was referring to can be found in OT verses regarding the woman being in subjection to her husband and not having authority over men. You used the word "dominion", which is an old English word that is rarely used today. It is better understood by the word "authority". Men are to have authority over their wives because men are the head of the household, just as Christ is the head of the church. Christ is the head of male believers. Male believers are the head of their believing wives and believing women in general. This is proper Biblical order, therefore, proper Godly order. 1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Now to the Old Testament and what Paul was undoubtedly thinking about when he said law:
Gen 2:18 And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him. Being a help mate, is what is implied in the term "subjection".
Gen_3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. This authority over the woman was a judgement subsequent to the fall because eve was the first in the transgression.
Here are a few quotes from commentators of the past centuries and how they viewed this commandment "of women keeping silent", in the churches:
Albert Barnes (1798-1870)
Let your women keep silence ... - This rule is positive, explicit, and universal. There is no ambiguity in the expressions; and there can be no difference of opinion, one would suppose, in regard to their meaning. The sense evidently is, that in all those things which he had specified, the women were to keep silence; they were to take no part. He had discoursed of speaking foreign languages, and of prophecy; and the evident sense is, that in regard to all these they were to keep silence, or were not to engage in them. These pertained solely to the male portion of the congregation. These things constituted the business of the public teaching; and in this the female part of the congregation were to be silent. “They were not to teach the people, nor were they to interrupt those who were speaking” - Rosenmuller. It is probable that, on pretence of being inspired, the women had assumed the office of public teachers.
John Gill (1697-1771)
Let your women keep silence in the churches,.... This is a restriction of, and an exception to one of the above rules, that all might prophesy; in which he would be understood of men only, and not of women; and is directed against a practice which seems to have prevailed in this church at Corinth, allowing women to preach and teach in it; and this being a disorderly practice, and what was not used in other churches, the apostle forbids and condemns, and not without reason:
for it is not permitted unto them to speak; that is, in public assemblies, in the church of God, they might not speak with tongues, nor prophesy, or preach, or teach the word. All speaking is not prohibited; they might speak their experiences to the church, or give an account of the work of God upon their souls; they might speak to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs; or speak as an evidence in any case at a church meeting; but not in such sort, as carried in it direction, instruction, government, and authority. It was not allowed by God that they should speak in any authoritative manner in the church; nor was it suffered in the churches of Christ; nor was it admitted of in the Jewish synagogue; there, we are told (b), the men came to teach, and the women לשמוע, "to hear"
If you compare these comments to modern commentators, then you will see the change creeping in.