Doctrine: Is It Really Worth Arguing Over?

[SQLservant]

For all my concern over what is true doctrine, and what is the proper response thereto, I've come to a rather hard question:

Does any of it really matter?

Paul wrote to the Corinthians that no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Whatever one builds on this foundation, they will be saved, whether with a reward or through loss. This looks like it says that so long as Christ is made the sure foundation, no other doctrine really matters. If it doesn't really matter, how can we say that it is wrong to hold to, and how can we be sure that the things we believe or do aren't really the wood, straw, and stubble that Paul speaks of? Why are heresy and schism said to be so terrible if the heretics are still saved in spite of their misconceptions? Is orthodoxy just a nice extra to have, but not really worth worrying about?

How do I answer this? Just how important is the truth, anyway?

 

[Nova Scotian Boy]

Yes .Doctrine is scripture, so the question is: Do we follow the Bible or not. Liberalism in the church i think has come about from the idea that you put forth. "Who cares about doctrinal differences were all right. Lets focus on the things that are the same." Lets boil are beliefs down to the point that they look the same. The next logical step after that is "Look at all the religions cant we get along, i mean we have certain things in common. Being a good person is what matters, not this Jesus is God stuff that just divides."

I cant speak on Corinthians as you have given no reference to verse at all.

Truth is truth and there is only one truth. I have more respect with someone that believes the opposite of me but knows why and holds firm to it then someone who knows not what they believe and thinks that there being biblical.

 

[motherprayer]

God is not the author of confusion, and satan surely is the author of dissent. The Bible is clear on how to be saved, what kind of life to lead, and how to love.

It is when people follow "Man's Interpretation of the Bible" that things become grayish.

 

[SQLservant]

The verses, for those keeping score, were from 1 Cor. 3:11-15.

Even though the truth is one, Paul is certainly clear that the one who builds with straw and things that will not bear the fire will be saved, in spite of his "carnal works and silly doctrines," as Aquinas said it. While the truth is certainly good to have, this appears to be saying that as long as you have Christ as your foundation, the rest is of little final importance.

Surely you believe those who maintain doctrines contrary to you believe they are following the Bible as well, don't you?

 

[grasping the after wind]

For all my concern over what is true doctrine, and what is the proper response thereto, I've come to a rather hard question:

Does any of it really matter?

Paul wrote to the Corinthians that no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Whatever one builds on this foundation, they will be saved, whether with a reward or through loss. This looks like it says that so long as Christ is made the sure foundation, no other doctrine really matters. If it doesn't really matter, how can we say that it is wrong to hold to, and how can we be sure that the things we believe or do aren't really the wood, straw, and stubble that Paul speaks of? Why are heresy and schism said to be so terrible if the heretics are still saved in spite of their misconceptions? Is orthodoxy just a nice extra to have, but not really worth worrying about?

How do I answer this? Just how important is the truth, anyway?

If it can set you free I would say it is important. If you mean how important is it to sweat the details? Well that is a completely different question.

 

[Nova Scotian Boy]

If the Bible is clear only on salvation. Then why did God not just give us a Bible tract. Instead your left with a couple of dozen books that God gave but are not important. It seems that your saying God did something for no reason at all. I see the entire Bible as given by God ("All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."2 Timothy 3:16-17) and that all of it is truth. To say only certain things like salvation is clear but everyone else is unclear. Is to say God is intentionally confusing. After all if all that is important in scripture is salvation ( which i believe is very important) then did not God do us a great disservice by not just sending a single letter detailing only the utmost important things. Instead of giving us a big book filled with allot of unimportant stuff that we have to sift through for the important things.

I also disagree that its clear on salvation.(I personally feel that it does.) However different groups have different views on how salvation works. What was accomplished. Who was saved. Were the saved at all.) I think you assert unity among all Christians on the topic of salvation when there is none.

 

[SQLservant]

These are all some good points.

What, then, do you believe to be the proper response to doctrines over which people disagree? Where is the line to be drawn between the disputable matters and the necessary matters, and why?

 

[Clare73]

For all my concern over what is true doctrine, and what is the proper response thereto, I've come to a rather hard question:

Does any of it really matter?

Perhpas reviewing Galatians would give you the answer you seek.
Chapter 5 is to the point.

In the faith,
Clare

 

[motherprayer]

These are all some good points.

What, then, do you believe to be the proper response to doctrines over which people disagree? Where is the line to be drawn between the disputable matters and the necessary matters, and why?

I think discussion about disagreements is a good thing, as long as it doesn't turn into strife. We can surely disagree without attacking each other, no?

I have had several disagreements with people regarding doctrine, and have learned much from what the people I was disagreeing with had to say.

It is important to remember not to mock, not to say hurtful things, simply because someone believes something that is contrary to what I believe. It is also important to be led of the spirit, and to remember that it is God who is the ultimate authority, not me or any other fallible human. To remember that is also to acknowledge that God is also responsible for them, and I am not. So if they don't automatically "fall in line" with my beliefs, that is okay, because in time, God will surely show us all the whole Truth.

If we remind ourselves that "I" am just as prone to mistakes as the person "I" may disagree with, then it keeps us humble, and willing to accept teaching that may fly in the face of what we have been taught in the past.

But if we become prideful in our beliefs, that can lead to a "my way or the hellway" type of attitude, where we begin to feel we have at some point "earned" the right to judge who can be saved and how, where the only One who has that right would never speak to "me" about the state of another person's salvation.

Ack, rambling again lol I hope some of this made sense. I have a cold, and the medicine is messing with my ability to make sense :-/

 

[linssue55]

For all my concern over what is true doctrine, and what is the proper response thereto, I've come to a rather hard question:

Does any of it really matter?

Paul wrote to the Corinthians that no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Whatever one builds on this foundation, they will be saved, whether with a reward or through loss. This looks like it says that so long as Christ is made the sure foundation, no other doctrine really matters. If it doesn't really matter, how can we say that it is wrong to hold to, and how can we be sure that the things we believe or do aren't really the wood, straw, and stubble that Paul speaks of? Why are heresy and schism said to be so terrible if the heretics are still saved in spite of their misconceptions? Is orthodoxy just a nice extra to have, but not really worth worrying about?

How do I answer this? Just how important is the truth, anyway?

TRUTH? It is VERY important to me. But only you can answer how important it is to you?!


Doctrine is worth discussing, not debating it.


"Do not cast your pearls before swine."

Some people just don't want the truth, some just want to argue.


1TI 6:3-5, If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, He is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived or withdrawn from the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.



2TI 4:3, For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves, teachers (pastors) in accordance to their own desires;



2TI 4:4, and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths.

The Lord to me is the all encomposing truth! No one can make any believe, this takes faith.

 

[Nova Scotian Boy]

Tolerance is not submitting that all doctrines are valid, but that the person you are debating with has the right to be wrong, and you have the right to persuade him otherwise. Some denominations i can see enough similarities to agree to disagree. Others i cannot have anything to do with because I believe there teachers are false prophets and not teach truth, but perverting Gods word. That there idea are not just what i disagree with but heretical, and contrary to scripture.

I feel everyone should be detailed in what they believe. I hold more issues not with someone who disagree with me but with the idea that doctrine does not matter, lets just love each other, "deed before creeds". As ive already said this thinking has let to the degradation of the church. What the church needs is more doctrine.

 

[SQLservant]

Tolerance is not submitting that all doctrines are valid, but that the person you are debating with has the right to be wrong, and you have the right to persuade him otherwise. Some denominations i can see enough similarities to agree to disagree. Others i cannot have anything to do with because I believe there teachers are false prophets and not teach truth, but perverting Gods word. That there idea are not just what i disagree with but heretical, and contrary to scripture.

I feel everyone should be detailed in what they believe. I hold more issues not with someone who disagree with me but with the idea that doctrine does not matter, lets just love each other, "deed before creeds". As ive already said this thinking has let to the degradation of the church. What the church needs is more doctrine.

This is one thing I've always respected about Presbyterians: They continue to maintain confessional and creedal commitments in a time of relativism.

 

[sculleywr]

For all my concern over what is true doctrine, and what is the proper response thereto, I've come to a rather hard question:

Does any of it really matter?

Paul wrote to the Corinthians that no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Whatever one builds on this foundation, they will be saved, whether with a reward or through loss. This looks like it says that so long as Christ is made the sure foundation, no other doctrine really matters. If it doesn't really matter, how can we say that it is wrong to hold to, and how can we be sure that the things we believe or do aren't really the wood, straw, and stubble that Paul speaks of? Why are heresy and schism said to be so terrible if the heretics are still saved in spite of their misconceptions? Is orthodoxy just a nice extra to have, but not really worth worrying about?

How do I answer this? Just how important is the truth, anyway?

The Truth is the foundation upon which we build the Church. True Doctrine is necessary in the life of the Christian. True Doctrine leads to True worship. True Worship leads to True practice. The three together lead to True Communion with God.

Examples of how doctrine effects practice are easily visible. Here are some:

The Gnostic heresy of the first century taught that Christ was not human, nor physical. This was the result of another doctrine that matter and all material things were evil, brought in from Hellenistic Greek culture. This resulted in a change in how they worshiped. They took the body completely out of worship, and gnosticism became a purely intellectual and emotional worship, provoking highs and lows of emotions through their gatherings, to the point that many would fall over in spasms on the floor (Source: Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy, episode 2: heresies through history, Father Andrew Stephen Damick). This then led to a denial of all things physical outside of the church. Gnostics would withdraw from the outside world, spending time pursuing this "secret knowledge" that their leaders spoke of.

Baptists believe that salvation is "eternally secure" (no I am not debating this point. I am simply illustrating how doctrine affects things). This causes their worship services to focus on songs that illustrate the finished state of salvation they teach is given to the faithful. This belief is then perpetrated into their lives in both good and bad ways, depending on the person. Some become witnesses, telling of the church to others. The negative effect of this teaching is the large number of pew riders, confident in their salvation, who do nothing at all.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

For all my concern over what is true doctrine, and what is the proper response thereto, I've come to a rather hard question:

Does any of it really matter?

Paul wrote to the Corinthians that no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Whatever one builds on this foundation, they will be saved, whether with a reward or through loss. This looks like it says that so long as Christ is made the sure foundation, no other doctrine really matters. If it doesn't really matter, how can we say that it is wrong to hold to, and how can we be sure that the things we believe or do aren't really the wood, straw, and stubble that Paul speaks of? Why are heresy and schism said to be so terrible if the heretics are still saved in spite of their misconceptions? Is orthodoxy just a nice extra to have, but not really worth worrying about?

How do I answer this? Just how important is the truth, anyway?

Just agree with 'em and that will end all arguements

 

[SQLservant]

The Truth is the foundation upon which we build the Church. True Doctrine is necessary in the life of the Christian. True Doctrine leads to True worship. True Worship leads to True practice. The three together lead to True Communion with God.

The sad thing is, I hadn't seen it that way; I think I was trying to consider doctrine in a vacuum. Thanks for this perspective!

I'd been hoping to hear an Orthodox opinion on the matter, too, considering the zeal for the truth that that church possesses.

 

[Gnarwhal]

For all my concern over what is true doctrine, and what is the proper response thereto, I've come to a rather hard question:

Does any of it really matter?

Paul wrote to the Corinthians that no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Whatever one builds on this foundation, they will be saved, whether with a reward or through loss. This looks like it says that so long as Christ is made the sure foundation, no other doctrine really matters. If it doesn't really matter, how can we say that it is wrong to hold to, and how can we be sure that the things we believe or do aren't really the wood, straw, and stubble that Paul speaks of? Why are heresy and schism said to be so terrible if the heretics are still saved in spite of their misconceptions? Is orthodoxy just a nice extra to have, but not really worth worrying about?

How do I answer this? Just how important is the truth, anyway?

Yes I think it is worth it for multiple reasons. The biggest of which is that fruit comes from our doctrine, what we believe to be true about the Triune God and how we live as followers of Jesus directly determines what kind of fruit we can expect to produce, one tends to inform the other. So discussing orthodox doctrine is important because we all desire to bear good fruit. Another reason I think it's important is because we sharpen each other in the process of discussion and debate. If you believe X and I believe Y, one of the benefits of discussing and debating is that we would at least walk away having a better idea why we believe X or Y.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[Nova Scotian Boy]

The Truth is the foundation upon which we build the Church. True Doctrine is necessary in the life of the Christian. True Doctrine leads to True worship. True Worship leads to True practice. The three together lead to True Communion with God.

Examples of how doctrine effects practice are easily visible. Here are some:

The Gnostic heresy of the first century taught that Christ was not human, nor physical. This was the result of another doctrine that matter and all material things were evil, brought in from Hellenistic Greek culture. This resulted in a change in how they worshiped. They took the body completely out of worship, and gnosticism became a purely intellectual and emotional worship, provoking highs and lows of emotions through their gatherings, to the point that many would fall over in spasms on the floor (Source: Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy, episode 2: heresies through history, Father Andrew Stephen Damick). This then led to a denial of all things physical outside of the church. Gnostics would withdraw from the outside world, spending time pursuing this "secret knowledge" that their leaders spoke of.

Baptists believe that salvation is "eternally secure" (no I am not debating this point. I am simply illustrating how doctrine affects things). This causes their worship services to focus on songs that illustrate the finished state of salvation they teach is given to the faithful. This belief is then perpetrated into their lives in both good and bad ways, depending on the person. Some become witnesses, telling of the church to others. The negative effect of this teaching is the large number of pew riders, confident in their salvation, who do nothing at all.

Very well said.

 

[sculleywr]

The sad thing is, I hadn't seen it that way; I think I was trying to consider doctrine in a vacuum. Thanks for this perspective!

I'd been hoping to hear an Orthodox opinion on the matter, too, considering the zeal for the truth that that church possesses.

Well, I hadn't made that connection untile I heard the Priest at my parish explain it that way. The explanation is from him, the first example is from Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy, the second example is from personal experience as a former Baptist

 

[motherprayer]

I just posted this in another thread, and I feel it can apply here as well:

In my view, God does not control us, and that is His deliberate choice. He gave us the gift of allowing us to live as we choose, even if our choices do not follow Him.

I feel the Bible supports this view, as a whole. We see, consistently, stories of people choosing to serve Him and people choosing not to serve Him, and God providing means to turn back.

But it is still our choice.

And at the end of the day, I believe God is good, and that He does not delight in evil, and that while His desires never change, He is willing to make adaptations in His plans to ensure that His message gets heard. I see the Bible as supporting this as well. God created man and woman, and they disobeyed. So He kicked them out of the garden, and they then lived with the knowledge of both good AND evil. Man lived in relative peace for a long time, until at some point things went awry, and God repented of making man, and decided to send a flood to rid the world of evil. And then after that man lived, again, in relative peace for a time, until the days of Pharoah and Moses. God saw man going astray, so He wrote Commandments in stone and used Moses to show His people how to behave.

And so forth. I see things happening in the Bible that were not God's plan, and I see God making provision to bring His people back to Him. Does that mean God Himself changes? NO! What it means is that while God does not change, His people do, and He is willing to allow us to change, and willing to turn evil around for good.

Does that make my theology horrible? Does that make me an unregenerate? Does the belief that God is more Good than ANYTHING else mean that I serve a different God than you?

I believe the answer to all of those questions is NO. You are entitled to your belief and doctrine, but you are NOT entitled to bash my belief if it differs from yours.

 

[Nova Scotian Boy]

I just posted this in another thread, and I feel it can apply here as well:

In my view, God does not control us, and that is His deliberate choice. He gave us the gift of allowing us to live as we choose, even if our choices do not follow Him.

I feel the Bible supports this view, as a whole. We see, consistently, stories of people choosing to serve Him and people choosing not to serve Him, and God providing means to turn back.

But it is still our choice.

And at the end of the day, I believe God is good, and that He does not delight in evil, and that while His desires never change, He is willing to make adaptations in His plans to ensure that His message gets heard. I see the Bible as supporting this as well. God created man and woman, and they disobeyed. So He kicked them out of the garden, and they then lived with the knowledge of both good AND evil. Man lived in relative peace for a long time, until at some point things went awry, and God repented of making man, and decided to send a flood to rid the world of evil. And then after that man lived, again, in relative peace for a time, until the days of Pharoah and Moses. God saw man going astray, so He wrote Commandments in stone and used Moses to show His people how to behave.

And so forth. I see things happening in the Bible that were not God's plan, and I see God making provision to bring His people back to Him. Does that mean God Himself changes? NO! What it means is that while God does not change, His people do, and He is willing to allow us to change, and willing to turn evil around for good.

Does that make my theology horrible? Does that make me an unregenerate? Does the belief that God is more Good than ANYTHING else mean that I serve a different God than you?

I believe the answer to all of those questions is NO. You are entitled to your belief and doctrine, but you are NOT entitled to bash my belief if it differs from yours.

Yes, your intitled to your belief. That does not you right. In fact I have huge problems with what you just said. Biggest of all is that God repented making humanity. For God to repent means that he sinned, God DOes not sin. If God sinned Christianity is pointless as Christ would be a sinner like God and no propitiation for sin. I can except you believe what you believe but I do not except that it is biblical or Christian. As a reformed Christianity I do not presume that I was the first person to read the bible, there is 2000 years of Christians before me and all the men capable of area it's uncharitable to think in there collective godly wisdom that they got nothing right. Before I'm judged for being judgmental although I think your in error I do not know you and cannot say you are unregenerate.