"You are really cool you are married to an European!! How cooler can you be??"
Fisherman Pecheur
"Smarty Pants"
Mad Matt
"Oh, you did not ask for Bonhoeffer's opinion did you? You wanted mine..."
the SOFYST
"You are like the master at this "feelings" stuff!
Kind Kristi
"I enjoy your comments, but they are always delightfully enigmatic"
Dyspraxic Fundamentalist
How can we ever hope to establish and maintain doctrinal purity if our systems, creeds, catechisms and covenants are immune to review, debate and refutation? How can we possibly review, debate and refute error within the body when we refuse to allow any and all dissenting opinions? Is amputation really the first line of defense against the disease of doctrinal error?
offered by Kc | 5/18/2008 07:34:00 AM
60 Comments:
"If your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off..."
{c;
Good to see you, KC. You know, I've been wondering the same thing. Can an err become sin - and if so, when?
Missy
This comment has been removed by the author.
Of which "systems, creeds, catechisms and covenants" are you speaking that need correction and in what denomination?
Or are you questioning the governing process in a particular denomination?
There are means of petition for changes within different denominations. That really all depends upon which denomination you are in. In a presbyter system, like in our denomination, we could change a creed, etc, if we could prove the case Biblically. Last General Assembly, one such case occurred that I know about for such, and that was on the "New Perspectives on Paul" that fell in light of Scripture. It would have changed some of the doctrine we adhere to. The point I'm making here is that it made it to the floor of GA and was given a fair chance to be heard, questioned, discussed, and debated. I like our system, because it allows for the constant examination of what we believe in order to keep our doctrine pure and Biblical.
I am SO glad to see you blogging again!
Sounds like your answer is revealed in the way you ask the question. Besides, you already know what I think. I would say that anyone who prioritizes doctrine over relationship will join the goats on the Lord's left side. But that would be judging. So I'll just think it to myself.
"How can we ever hope to establish and maintain doctrinal purity if our systems, creeds, catechisms and covenants are immune to review, debate and refutation?"
At the risk of being a 'left-handed goat', doesn't the fact that we have "systems","creeds", "catechisms" prove our bent to be fallible?
BTW, my heart is happy to see you post again my friend. My heart is also happy to see my common sense friend(Dorsey) comment also.
Hi Missy! I think my thoughts are more in line with 1st Corinthians 12
“And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honor to that part which lacked: That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it. “
(1 Corinthians 12:21-26 KJV)
Should I cut off the Lord’s foot? ;-)
I think sin and error is a wise study.
(Great to hear from you Sis!)
Sis. Beth you’re so sweet! I am still very busy but I hope to be able to at least respond to all comments this time. ;-)
I think my concern would involve how your assembly would handle those who continue to accept what the upper hierarchy has determined to be an unacceptable or unbiblical belief. Will they be condemned or cast out?
(Our love to all!)
Dorse your last sentence most clearly reveals my current dilemma. If I “cut off” those who value doctrine over relationship then don’t I become one of them?
(Miss you brother!)
Kris I absolutely agree. The fact that these all conflict and/or contradict (some even themselves) proves the need for continued debate and discussion.
(I hope you’re all doing great! Our love to everyone)
"If I 'cut off' those who value doctrine over relationship then don’t I become one of them? "
You don't have to cut them off. They'll cut you off first. Problem solved. : )
In my mind, that is a tension between Jesus (who plainly says don't judge) and Paul (who suggests a limit to fellowship). That's why it positively demands continued debate and discussion.
(Thrilled to see you back, too. Belated thanks for the very timely birthday greeting. You got my number, bro.)
KC, it sure is good to see you posting again.
In my experience, when someone uses "amputation" (great term, BTW) as a first line of defense, it often is because they are not truly grounded in what they think it is they believe. Their insecurity causes them to be belligerent and even hostile towards those who disagree with them.
Then there are the control freaks...
God bless
Dorse excellent points both. I hope we can start a discussion on the tension soon. (Thanks for being such a wonderful brother.)
Preacher I hope I can keep up for a while. We really appreciate you and Sis. Amy. ;-)
I’m glad that you made a distinction between those who are insecure and those who would usurp Christ’ authority. While control is the central issue in both instances (“I won’t let you control my thinking” or “I won’t let you take my control”) there is a great difference in the intent of each. I admit I’m not sure it’s always possible to determine which is the case or how to resolve the associated problem (division) caused by both.
I have not had a problem with maintaining fellowship when I listen.. but when I open my mouth.. well that is another story :)
Bob I seem to have the same problem. Do you think there's a lesson in that? ;-)
After we spoke, I did a little exploring and found the thread to which I think you referred. The exchange was maddening, and I wholeheartedly concur with Gordon's diagnosis of insecurity. I'm not so sure I'd make the distinction between that and control freak, though. In my experience, the need for control is merely a classic manifestation of utmost insecurity.
I know this because I have been that guy.
But I'm feeling much better now.
Dorse I confess I suspect a lust for power or worse in some cases but I honestly fear making a judgment. We just can't know the heart.
At least I'm glad you're feeling better. ;-)
KC, I hope you know my initial remark was facetious and I also find 1 Cor 12 encouraging and instructive.
Sin vs. error is a good study - as long as the subject is my own sin and error. And I've been studying that for some time. :)
I find when I can do no more than judge, that to settle on a judgement that leads to compassion (such as insecurity) seems the best course. I am hopeful someday that my compassion will precede and even preclude judgement.
Have a wonderful day!
Missy
Missy that sounds like wisdom to me! ;-)
I'm confused.
Are you talking about creeds or church discipline, ie removing someone from the Lord's Table for a time because of unrepentant and heinous sin?
If you're talking about doing away with either or both because some people misuse them in power plays, you must remember there are a lot who do use them righteously, as we're called to. Using them unrighteously or self-righteously is sinful. But that doesn't mean we get rid of them. People have misused the 10 Commandments, but we're still commanded to follow them. Does that mean we get rid of them? Certainly not.
As for church discipline, it must be done with the goal of bring the sinner back into fellowship first with Christ then with the body. We are called to come along side a sinning brother as they are called with us. There is a whole process, biblical, that must be used. Yes, some do misuse it- hence the whole log-eye thing.
I don't understand your problem with creeds and confessions of faith. I have read what you believe and it falls in line with the Apostles' and Nicene creed. Maybe not the WCF- in some parts. If I'm looking at a church or am dealing with someone, I want to know what it is they believe.
OR are you talking about denominations again? There are non-denominational churches that hold to some creeds, have mission statements, etc.
Or, am I just misreading things? It has been a long day.
Sis. Beth thanks for your time in this. I pray that all your long days will be good ones. ;-)
I think my concern is best expressed in a question. At what point does a doctrinal dispute become an “unrepentant and heinous sin”?
When my sense of certainty is threatened by it. That seems to be the magic point at which a 'brother' is reclassified as a 'wolf.'
"At what point does a doctrinal dispute become an “unrepentant and heinous sin”?"
KC, this has always been my opinion (but I would be open to a scriptural rebuke):
A doctrinal dispute could become sinful when an error is realized, and for the sake of pride (or other characterizations) it is still proffered as truth.
Also, when I hold that doctrine above love - even if my doctrine is true - I think the unloving actions that may ensue are certainly sinful. I am reminded that Jesus was innocent when he went to the cross - but never attempted to defend himself. Why do I feel as though I have to right every wrong?
I think we tend to take the responsibility of evangelism too far, as though God can't do anything with it unless we do it perfectly. My mother (not a believer) called me this week because she met a young woman who was lonely and tired of life. My mom told her that when I felt like that years ago, I studied the Bible with some friends and it changed my life. She said this young woman wouldn't leave her alone until she connected her with some of my friends. This young woman is studying the Bible tonight, 2000 miles away from me, and I never spoke a word.
Our calling is to provide hope to the lost until they are found - by whom? Not me.
Missy
(sorry for the rant)
Dorse, what about when your position or authority in the assembly seems threatened?
Missy no admonition here but I see I failed with my question to fully express my concern. I should ask, “At what point does a doctrinal dispute dictate removing someone from the Lord's Table for a time because of unrepentant and heinous sin?”
So then, do you punt the idea all together of confronting a sinning brother at all, and let them continue in the sin?
Can we not discern what is sin and what isn't? Do we not have a guide that tells us?
All sin ruins and/or disfigures our relationship with the Father. How is letting someone continue sinning a loving thing to do?
We often, because of our sin and all the excuses for it, can not see the depth we are mired in until some one shows us and points us back to the Lord.
Pointing back to the Lord is the key. More often than not, they have dealt with or are dealing with their own sin so that hypocrisy is a moot point, and can lovingly confront a sinning brother.
When you punt church discipline "because we all sin" then, we all continue sinning. The Holy Spirit uses the body to help sinners recognize their need for the Savior.
Are you worried about getting "kicked out of church" unfairly? If the church leadership does this, it's better leaving in the first place.
If what you believe and the church believes differs in important areas that you can not let love cover over, why would you go there?
If the church confronts you in love because of a sin, have you examined your heart to see if that sin is really a sin and/or really there? Is there something there that needs repenting, even if they are being Pharisaical? We need to deal with our sins first and then help them deal with theirs. We need each other's help. That is edification, too.
But things can get really ugly.
I am so sorry that so many people have gotten hurt in churches. That looks like what the real problem is here. It isn't doctrine. It isn't creeds or not having creeds. It isn't denominations or non-denominations.
It is the nastiness of sin in people's hearts, the unwillingness to recognize sin and repent. The worst thing about being in a church is being in church with all those sinners. Somebody is apt to sin. :) The question is how to handle it the way Christ would have us.
The answer isn't punting church discipline or creeds. The answer is dealing with sin in a loving and Christ like way.
Ken Sande has some great books out there about Biblical peacemaking.
Dear Sis. Beth,
I suspect that you’re either reading more into my question than I intended or the implications of a specific answer seem unacceptable. In any event I have written what I consider to be an exhaustive series of articles on Church discipline. If after reading them you are convinced that I “punt” Church discipline I will be more than happy to give account and, as always, I welcome your thoughts.
As pertaining to Creeds I should ask just how much of which creed(s) would I have to reject for you to consider my rejection an unrepentant and heinous sin worthy of Church discipline?
“At what point does a doctrinal dispute dictate removing someone from the Lord's Table for a time because of unrepentant and heinous sin?”
Thanks for the clarification, KC. I don't think the disagreement or questioning of a doctrine itself would dictate removal - but I don't think of disagreement as sin. I think the dispute can be at the root of sin that can dictate removal - such as slander, hatred, pride, etc. These things can be clear enough to warrant action, but do not have to. I think it depends on the maturity and love of the congregation.
I see commitment to the Church - Christ's body - very similar to the commitment made in marriage. Christ explains that divorce in marriage should only occur by mutual agreement in the occasion of unfaithfulness. He explains while divorce may occur in these instances, it does not have to. I hold this measure in my commitment to the Church.
Maybe I am naive?
Missy
Missy, how would you define heresy and do you consider heresy an offense worthy of Church discipline?
KC, technically heresy is holding, presenting, and/or teaching a view or belief that varies from the orthodox/traditional view or belief. By this, I would guess that we are all heretics in some area - as for me it is in many areas. :)
The only heresy I have ever considered worthy of church discipline is the heresy that leads believers into idolatry - i.e., "We are gods"; "Our pastor is God"; "Let us build a golden calf and bow before it." (Duet. 13) I have yet to find scripture that address anything other than warnings to be personally vigilant in our own doctrine, and in fact I find Galatians encourages believers to bear with brothers in serious error.
Missy
"Dorse, what about when your position or authority in the assembly seems threatened?"
Remember that I live in New Jersey. At that point, you just have the guy whacked.
: )
Missy we’re getting there! ;-)
I want to stick with your first paragraph for the moment if you will. What would you say defines orthodox Christian teaching?
Dorse, while I appreciate your input I can no longer fellowship with you (I’ll be in hiding!). ;-)
KC, so glad I'm going in the right direction!
I would say that orthodox is a matter of perspective - for the purpose of church discipline in a specific congregation, I would say orthodox teaching would be what a specific congregation has traditionally taught especially in accordance with a creed or a statement of belief.
Dorsey might define it as "an offer you can't refuse." :)
Missy
Missy, are you saying that Christian orthodxy varies and is defined by the local congregational traditions?
(BTW with respect to your thoughts on Dorse; I will no longer read your comments while drinking my morning coffee.)
"Missy, are you saying that Christian orthodxy varies and is defined by the local congregational traditions?"
Yes, because orthodoxy is based on tradition, not exactly truth. This is why I don't exactly believe in a negative connotation of heresy. I don't find either term (orthodoxy or anti-heretical), as we define it, very scriptural in practice. Unless, of course, we are talking about the negative practices of the pharisees as Jesus did. Jesus rebuked them for holding orthodoxy above love (Matthew 15). I don't think Jesus ever had anything positive to say about traditions.
Tell Corry I am sorry about the mess, and I hope the coffee stains come up.
Missy, could I observe that most, if not all, of your arguments are based on the teachings of Jesus and what is and is not in accordance with those teachings as related by scripture? ;-)
How would deal with this instruction;
“A man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition reject;” Titus 3:10 (KJV)
(The laugh was worth the mess!)
I wonder if it is okay to be a heretic if you keep your mouth shut?
Bob, that's one hec of an interesting concept! ;-)
I think that the question goes to the heart of what it is to be a heretic.
I agree. If we teach the teachings of Christ and the Apostles we're on solid ground. If we teach our systems of theology as if they are scripture I fear we can easily approach the mark of heresy.
Teaching the teachings of Christ and the Apostles doesn't always put us on solid ground with some. Consider the dying words of the so-called heretic Jan Hus:
"God is my witness that I have never taught that of which I have by false witnesses been accused. In the truth of the Gospel which I have written, taught, and preached, I will die today with gladness."
He then went on to prophesy the coming of Martin Luther.. another heretic to some.
This is why we all must be careful to use the word heretic with extreme caution. In my youth and immaturity I considered many as heretics.. I have since repented and now embrace as brothers many of those who I falsely judged.
Another question: If one is part of a heretical sect then can you call them a heretic?
Bob, thanks for all your input.
My answer would be, only if they teach the heresy.
Agreed KC.. the teaching of heresy is the issue.. I guess that is why James issues the admonition found in James 3:1.
I wonder if some would call the teachers of evolution heretics :)
"How would deal with this instruction;
“A man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition reject;” Titus 3:10 (KJV)"
KC, in my understanding, this scripture has nothing to do with church discipline. It has everything to do with instructing me on how to admonish a loved one who has ceased doing good. It tells me to talk to them about it once, maybe twice, then let it be - to avoid arguing and convincing and simply speak my opinion. Then let. it. go. He will not listen, and it does my heart and his no good to debate it.
Am I reading this chapter incorrectly?
Missy
Bob, I’m afraid to give an opinion for fear of being labeled an heretic! ;-)
Missy, I like what John Wesley says on this verse:
“An heretic (after a first and second admonition) reject - Avoid, leave to himself. This is the only place, in the whole scripture, where this word heretic occurs; and here it evidently means, a man that obstinately persists in contending about "foolish questions," and thereby occasions strife and animosities, schisms and parties in the church. This, and this alone, is an heretic in the scripture sense; and his punishment likewise is here fixed. Shun, avoid him, leave him to himself. As for the Popish sense, "A man that errs in fundamentals," although it crept, with many other things, early into the church, yet it has no shadow of foundation either in the Old or New Testament.”
The shunning he speaks of is what I perceive Paul refers to in 1st Corinthians 5:5; “deliver such a one unto Satan”.
Pertaining to orthodoxy, would it be fair to say that the teachings of Christ and the Apostles are true and orthodox Christian doctrines?
I have enjoyed the dialog at Rose's place KC - especially your "opinions".
I guess if I called you a heretic then I would have to call myself one as well.
Of course some (usually of a Christian Universalist flavor) these days wear the heretic tag as somewhat of a badge of honor given them by (what they call) the traditional/institutional church.
They would do well to remember that the heresy tag cost some their lives.. like Hus many heretics were simply slain prophets.
KC, I like what John Wesley says about it, too. I am not sure kicking one out of fellowship is precisely what it means to do, but rather to stop the pursuit of correction with one who insists on rejecting the correction. I like to think it's telling me not to nag.
I could agree that the teachings of Christ should be the true and orthodox Christian doctrines - and I don't find many Christians would disagree, they simply like to add their "clarifications" to orthodoxy. I am not sure I would add all the teachings of the Apostles, as they were not always in agreement themselves. That statement might certainly make me a heretic if I were to teach that view, so I will leave it at that. :)
Missy
Bob, thanks for your kindness and for all your thoughts.
I have recently been challenged to examine my position on prophesy. Do you have some articles at your place that detail your position on this? Please feel free to post them here if you like or if you prefer please email them. I would be grateful in either case.
Missy, would you think it fair for me to say that the doctrine of the Apostles is consistent and true and that their contention was in regard to tradition? BTW the value of those “added clarifications" with respect to fellowship is specifically what I’m questioning here. ;-)
"I am not sure kicking one out of fellowship is precisely what it means to do, but rather to stop the pursuit of correction with one who insists on rejecting the correction. I like to think it's telling me not to nag."
Bingo, Missy. The light came on when I read that.
I think this dovetails nicely with Romans 12:18: "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone."
There are a couple people with whom I can live in peace only by living at a distance. I think they live according to a damnably faulty gospel, and I'm sure they think the same of mine. More fighting won't solve anything, and rallying the assembly to pick sides would serve only to feed a couple egos while it destroyed the congregation.
Good insight.
I don't think that I have anything written down about prophecy or prophets KC. I do think that prophets are generally unrecognized in their own time. I think that ML King was a prophet to America.
How about you? Do you think there are modern day prophets? I do. In a sense we are all prophets and God sometimes speaks through each of us - even if we don't precede it with thus saith the Lord :)
To be honest I don’t believe there is any further revelation concerning God’s work and plan for mankind beyond that given by Christ and the Apostles but I admit that may be a narrow view of what is prophesy.
Agree with you KC about..
"further revelation concerning God’s work and plan for mankind "
..but what does that have to do with prophecy?
Bob, now you know why I was asking for the links! ;-)
Perhaps you could make a post on prophesy?
I'd be happy to dialog about prophecy KC.. here are a few sentences from here:
Prophecy is speaking the word or message of God for a particular circumstance or time.
In Biblical times prophets foretold the future, condemned unrighteous acts, gave encouragement, recommended courses of action to rulers or to priests and warned of judgment.
Only a small portion of the work of a prophet involves predicting the future, and even the predictions are designed either to teach or to correct.
Bob, given that definition I would certainly agree there are some very faithful and devoted modern-day prophets.
KC,
"...would you think it fair for me to say that the doctrine of the Apostles is consistent and true and that their contention was in regard to tradition?"
I think it would be fair to say their doctrine was most likely consistent and true Christian doctrine - but not all their teachings. I think many take specific situational issues the Apostles dealt with or advised on and make it doctrine.
"BTW the value of those “added clarifications" with respect to fellowship is specifically what I’m questioning here."
That comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek. :P I do find those clarifications valuable - in most circumstances like the ones I refer to above regarding the Apostles teachings - but not in application to a corporate Christian doctrine.
Missy
Missy, please forgive my sarcasm. I promise it was not directed toward you but rather toward the perception of too many that they are clarifying the Word of God rather than their own understanding or interpretation. It pains me greatly to consider the great division caused by those who consider their clarifications equivalent to the divinely inspired Word of God.
I really do appreciate all your input and time on this thread and you can’t know how thankful I was to read it was only Lanacaide! ;-)
Oh, no, KC! "That comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek" was referring to my earlier comment - "I could agree that the teachings of Christ should be the true and orthodox Christian doctrines - and I don't find many Christians would disagree, they simply like to add their "clarifications" to orthodoxy." No apology needed.
As you can tell, I feel the same way. Great discussion, KC. I always walk away from here with hope.
BTW, the lanacaid event has given me a great idea for a practical joke. [evil laugh]
Sis, thanks for the added clarification! (hehe)
Now as for that joke...you really do have a..hmmm...Let's just say you must be a real rascal at times. ;-)
Didn't Paul say it he was saved when he took heed to sound doctrine?
Maybe, but I'm guessing that what he then considered sound doctrine has gotten pretty piled on in the ensuing couple millennia. Not sure he and we would be talking about the same things.
Ryan, which scripture are you thinking of?
Missy
Brother Ryan yes. I would really appreciate your thoughts on sound doctrine.
KC, this discussion made me think more on one of my many odd assumptions. I have a question of you and any of your guests back at my place if you have the time.
Post a Comment