Church of Christ: Cult,sect or true

November 27, 2009

A good statement of faith will be rooted true doctrine. The statemnet of faith is NOT doctrine. Doctrine is not established by any church, but is revealed to the Church by the Word of God.

When a Church or individual begins setting up their teachings as "Doctrine," that is a signal to run and run fast, as that is rather cultic.

For a Christian, true doctrine comes solely from Scripture not from an institution or person. Southern Baptist Churches are autonomous and democratic. We do not have our pastors or leaders assigned to us. We elect them as a congregation. We have an overal guide to what we believe known as the Baptist Faith and Message. It is an overview of the core beliefs of Southern Baptists. It is not a statement of faith and is never presented as "doctrine." Rather it is an expression of some of the core doctrines we believe that are taught in Scripture. It is divided up into categories such as:

The Scriptures
God
Man
Salvation
God's Purpose of Grace
The Church
Baptism and the Lord's Supper
The Lord's Day
The Kingdom
Last Things
Evangelism and Missions
Education
Stewardship
Cooperation
The Christian and the Social Order
Peace and War
Religious Liberty
Family

Yet individual churches also have their statement of faith and they are usually pretty typical of the following SoF by Bellvue Baptist Church in Memphis, TN:

Bellevue Baptist Church is a family of believers who holds dear the following beliefs:

God

November 27, 2009

Without copying all that has been said, I have to tell you that when I was discussing this with Smalcad, that is the definition I was referring to. When you came in, you changed this around to your understanding, which you do quite often.
Yes, and you were operating from the wrong definition. I came in operating from the correct definition of the term.

Enough said ... can't discuss with you a subject that you feel you are the final authority with.

God Bless Bro.

May His Peace be with you.

Again, it is not a matter of me feeling that I am the final authority on anything. The facts are what they are. There is a correct definition of the term. It is not MY definition, but it is the correct one. Doctrine is not man-made teachings. I don't know why that is so hard for you to see. Is the deity of Jesus a man-made doctrine??? Is Justification by faith a man-made doctrine??? Is believer's Baptism a man-made doctrine???

Your definition of doctrine only holds up until we examine specific doctrines. You use "doctrine" as an overarching reference to human opinion on the Bible, and that is the incorrect use of the term and you can hide the fact that you are offended by some insincere, stuck up "God Bless" but that will not change the fact that you really don't understand the concept of doctrine.

Botz · November 28, 2009

Smalcald...A doctrine should be the constitution of the congregation handed down and unchanging, why would biblical doctrine change over time?

I think that in the UK, you had the Church of England becoming the main recognized body, after they broke away from Rome in Henry V111th's reign...but many things that they practised and taught was incorrect biblically....so I guess other men that G-d rose up, like Wesley and Whitfield, broke away from it and tried to get back to true biblical teaching...and to have as a foundation, true salvation, and not nominal Christianity...or no infant christening, and Believer's baptism etc etc.

Biblical doctrine seems to change historically when a Church Body or denomination, moves away from the truth of the word, and accepts unbiblical doctrine...later others come along and try to get back to what the Bible said in the first place, and what some denominations originally believed, but eventually obscured with the traditions of men.

Smalcald · November 28, 2009

Smalcald...A doctrine should be the constitution of the congregation handed down and unchanging, why would biblical doctrine change over time?

I think that in the UK, you had the Church of England becoming the main recognized body, after they broke away from Rome in Henry V111th's reign...but many things that they practised and taught was incorrect biblically....so I guess other men that G-d rose up, like Wesley and Whitfield, broke away from it and tried to get back to true biblical teaching...and to have as a foundation, true salvation, and not nominal Christianity...or no infant christening, and Believer's baptism etc etc.

Biblical doctrine seems to change historically when a Church Body or denomination, moves away from the truth of the word, and accepts unbiblical doctrine...later others come along and try to get back to what the Bible said in the first place, and what some denominations originally believed, but eventually obscured with the traditions of men.

Yes I agree.

What I was addressing is not those long term fundamental shifts guided by man or by God or by satan.

I am talking about congregations that change doctrine like they change shoes, each preacher brings along his or "her" revelations and doctrine. This happens every couple of years or even every other month. A particular group gets in control and then THEY decide what the current doctrine is.

The bottom line is that they don't really believe anything, how could they if they can't articulate it or teach it from one generation to the next?

OneLight · November 28, 2009

Doctrine

Strong's G1322 - didachē

διδαχή

1) teaching

a) that which is taught

b) doctrine, teaching, concerning something

2) the act of teaching, instruction

a) in religious assemblies of the Christians, to speak in the way of teaching, in distinction from other modes of speaking in public

When a church places into writing what they believe and teach, it is called their doctrine, their belief and understanding of what scripture is telling them as truth. Some church doctrine states that you have to be baptized in order to be saved. Some teach that you have to speak in tongues. These are examples of doctrine, and may even be in their Statement of Faith, or Statement of Belief or their Statement of Truth, depending on which denomination you look at.

There is doctrine that is pure scripture with no explanation included. Others include both scripture and their understanding, which may or may not be the truth. Some even include beliefs that are not found in scripture, but through revelation they believe came from God. All are considered their doctrine.

Botz · November 28, 2009

Doctrine
Strong's G1322 - didachē
διδαχή
1) teaching
a) that which is taught
b) doctrine, teaching, concerning something
2) the act of teaching, instruction
a) in religious assemblies of the Christians, to speak in the way of teaching, in distinction from other modes of speaking in public

When a church places into writing what they believe and teach, it is called their doctrine, their belief and understanding of what scripture is telling them as truth. Some church doctrine states that you have to be baptized in order to be saved. Some teach that you have to speak in tongues. These are examples of doctrine, and may even be in their Statement of Faith, or Statement of Belief or their Statement of Truth, depending on which denomination you look at.

There is doctrine that is pure scripture with no explanation included. Others include both scripture and their understanding, which may or may not be the truth. Some even include beliefs that are not found in scripture, but through revelation they believe came from God. All are considered their doctrine.

A Churches doctrinal statement whether directly from Scripture or in their own words, should reflect precisely what is taught in Scripture, otherwise their doctrine is distorted or false. Presumably it is provided so that people can look it over and see that everything lines up with what the Bible teaches.

Smalcald...The bottom line is that they don't really believe anything, how could they if they can't articulate it or teach it from one generation to the next?

I can't really answer that...there are many Churches that just go through the motions, as I am sure we are all aware of...I have attended some Churches where I would have been more blessed staying home watching TV.

November 28, 2009

Doctrine
Strong's G1322 - didachē
διδαχή
1) teaching
a) that which is taught
b) doctrine, teaching, concerning something
2) the act of teaching, instruction
a) in religious assemblies of the Christians, to speak in the way of teaching, in distinction from other modes of speaking in public

That is all fine and good, but still does not apply to extra-biblical issues like "baptismal" regeneration. Strong's gives you denotation of the word, but not the various connotations.

The problem is that the word "doctrine" is thrown around to mean anything that someone teaches about the Bible. But doctrine is the solid teachings of Scripture.

The wrong use of the word is so common place, I can understand why it is hard to break out of it. Where Scripture is concerned, there is no such thing as "my doctrine" or "your doctrine." It just doesn't work that way. In Christianity "doctrine" is a term that indicates the timeless teachings of Scripture that apply to all believers.

Imagine what would happen if we defined doctrine as "man's ideas." How would this verse read? Replace the word "doctrine" with "man's ideas" in the following verse:

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and man's ideas about the Bible. 2Ti 4:2

Does that make any sense? When the Bible tells us to teach "doctrine" or when it speaks of "sound doctrine," it is always referring to the teachings of Scripture. Those are the doctrines we are study and preach.

Doctrines are not sectarian teachings limited to the scope of one denomination or individual. They are the universal teachings of Scripture such as the Deity of Jesus, the virgin birth, the existence of God, Justification, Sanctification, The second coming of Jesus, and so forth.

The rapture, baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, Limited Atonement, etc. are not doctrine as they are issues about which Christians have no universal agreement and which are still open to debate.

When a peson is teaching doctrine, he is teaching Scripture. If a person is teaching a sectarian issue or issue open to debate, he is not teaching doctrine.

All doctrine is teaching. Not all teaching is doctrine.

JCISGD · November 28, 2009

Elijah thought he was the only prophet of God left, but God had 7 thousand hiding in caves.

Those that claim to be the only true church do not realise Gods ability to raise up others where He pleases.

IMO any church claiming to be the only church is a cult and to be avoided, i doesnt matter how pleasant or lovely they may appear Jesus says even if some do miracles and cast out demons, they are not nescessarily His.

irishcowboy · November 29, 2009

the bible is one book, not 2.

Yes but I am not jewish therefore I am not commanded to follow the law of Moses.

The Newer Covenant has no meaning apart from the foundation...which is the Torah. God's instruction on righteousness is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

We can agree on this but again, we are not commanded to obey all of the old laws.

Does someone have to "command" you to worship God?

No but others would almost swear by it that instruments are almost a commandment for worship.

are you saying that David offered strange fire because he played an instrument?

No. But if God didn't command for its use in the New Testament would we then go against His word and offer up strange fire or worship?

I don't know of a christian who says baptism is "unimportant".

But they almost make it a point not to do it.

Yet there are churches and denominations who make it a cultic legalism. I'm not saying that CoC does that..but the Boston Movement of the CoC certainly does.

I'm unfamiliar with this church.

where do He say that? You're probably paraphrasing but I'd like to know exactly what you are referencing to asnwer the question

John 5:24

November 29, 2009

All doctrine is teaching. Not all teaching is doctrine.

I think we've been beating a dead horse of semantics for a few pages now.

I tend to agree with others here that a large percentage of what gets passed off as "doctrine" is human interpretation or commentary. It's a noble notion you have that there is no reason why doctrine has to be tainted. I only wish it were so.

If the pure Word of God was all that was being taught then there would be by default "good doctrine". But what many of us are trying to say to you is that "doctrine" is too often being passed off as if it is equal to the Word when it isn't. I'm sure you know what I mean by that....

It isn't always harmful "doctrine" but it's not necessarily completely biblically accurate either when focus is on one particular doctrine which might be accurate and true...but it's done without considering it in the context of other "doctrine"

And then there are "doctrines" made about prophetic future events which can't be emphatically proven yet...and "doctrines" made when several interpretations could all be possible. oy....

Now I'm going to stick my fingers back in my ears and go nana nana na na