We don't need no stinking doctrine?

[Shimshon]

.

Edited July 19, 2019 by Shimshon

[Qnts2]

 

 

 

 

** In my opinion, every true believer must have a saving gospel.  

 

I have talked to people who were not raised in a 'christian' environment. Christian environment means the person was exposed to the teaching of Christianity, even if their exposure was a liberal church, they would have heard certain doctrines. Instead, I am talking about people who were not raised or exposed to a christian environment, so essentially no little to nothing about Jesus. That means, they may not have heard of the virgin birth, or if Jesus is God or not. How much doctrine does a person need to know in order to be saved, is my definition of essential. So, I understand your exclusion of commonly held doctrine from the essentials. We might have the same idea of what an essential is.  

 

 **Could you explain more what you mean here? Thank you.

 

I was raised Reform and came to faith in Messiah without any Christian doctrines.  After I honored God's call to follow Messiah I did attempt to enter Christian environments, and entertained some of their doctrines.  Like at first I was swept away into a southern baptist church by a friend who thought how awesome it was for a Jew to become 'saved and baptised'.  Me?  I wanted to do what I read the Messiah and apostles did.  Because they implied that it was to be done with us as well.  As a symbol of the renewing of our hearts through the immersion of the Spirit of God.  Which is what I was really seeking.  So, I walked through some Christian environments 'after' I was saved.  I mean, they were all saying they had 'the way' to God, I had to see what it was all about.  But I never felt at home in any church, nor did I agree with any of their 'doctrines'.  So I started seeking other Jews who had the same experience as I did.  And so my walk as a Messianic Jew began.  This was the late 80's btw...  Long before all this Messianic Gentile stuff came along. 

 

I guess my point would be, as a Messianic Jew I never considered that I became saved by any form of Christian doctrine.  I came to my faith in the pit of hell, through all my wandering in the desert.  Messiah found me, crying and lashing out at people, as a young teen.  I was rejecting my Jewishness and the church.  I wound up reading the NT in a time when I was seeking and reading every book I could find.  Plato, Socrates, Antone Levey....  I was seeking.  Too funny too.  Because I was actually seeking that which I was running from.  When I read about Yeshua it hit me.  I was lost, and I actually started to believe he wanted to find me.  Yeshua, the King of the Jews.  Who said he loves us endelessly and desires to redeem us all.  I ran into my God face to face in the middle of the desert.  I was a murderer(figuratively), and he forgave me, and came to live with me.  Well, he was always there, I just had to realize it and accept it.  Cause I really started to hate him.  And I learned that only he can reach us, not any form of 'doctrine'. 

 

However, I can fully understand what your saying in regards to Christians who identify with Christianity 'through' a doctrine/denomination.  Glad I can not relate to that. 

 

 

Ok, we are similar because we are both Jewish and had no exposure to Christianity when we read about Jesus.

 

I was raised in an Orthodox/Conservative family. My father was orthodox, my mother was reform, but as a family, we practiced closer to Orthodox/Conservative. As you know, I married a Rabbi, and at a time when the congregation and my husband were having some conflicts, I felt somewhat caught between the two, and was disallusioned. I prayed one night, and asked God 'what is the truth?'. I woke up the next day with an urge to read the Gentile bible, the New Testament. I bought one and snuck it into the house. Read it while I was home alone, and discovered that Yeshua was the Messiah, prophesied in the Tenakh. I struggled for 3 days, trying to find a way around my belief but realized that the Tenakh and the New Testament were actually one book, inseparable. If I said the NT was false, the only logical conclusion was the Tenakh was false, but I did not believe the Tenakh was false, so I had to believe what the NT said, which meant Yeshua was the promised Messiah.  

 

I did not think of it as doctrine at the time, but what I believed...

 

Yeshua/Jesus is the prophesied Messiah.

He died for sins.

He rose again. 

Yeshua was the only way to God. To deny Jesus was to deny God.

 

My thought at the time was amazement that the Jewish people had missed the Messiah while the Gentiles had found Him. I went from unbelief to belief.

 

So, in my view, what the minimum belief in order to be save, is the essentials. No matter what else anyone might believe, if we are saved, then we are born again, of like Spirit. To be a Messianic Jew/Christian, there are essentials. Honestly, I had to think this out when I was invited to go on a campaign to share the gospel in a Jewish neighborhood. Many Gentiles and other Messianic Jews were involved. Of the Gentiles, there was a wide range of belief, Baptists, Calvinists, Nazarenes, Charismatics, etc etc etc. So, to work with such a wide range of views, I thought I needed to think of what the essentials were, as we were all going out to share the gospel of salvation. What was the common bond in belief. (One day I went house to house with a pastor who was a calvinist. In between house, we discussed and debated Calvinism. At the end, although we disagreed, we had a wonderful day of talking together and sharing the gospel. To me Calvinism is a secondary doctrine, and not one to divide, even though I might disagree.

 

But, when a pastor says that we do not need any doctrine and that doctrine is bad, my immediate thought was, there can not be Christianity or Messianic Judaism, without doctrine. The gospel of salvation/soteriology is doctrine. I really wanted to hear other opinions about this.     

[Shimshon]

.

Edited July 19, 2019 by Shimshon

[another_poster]

 

Thanks.

 

In my opinion, an essential would be the doctrines, beliefs one needs in order to be saved. In my opinion, every true believer must have a saving gospel.  

 

I have talked to people who were not raised in a 'christian' environment. Christian environment means the person was exposed to the teaching of Christianity, even if their exposure was a liberal church, they would have heard certain doctrines. Instead, I am talking about people who were not raised or exposed to a christian environment, so essentially no little to nothing about Jesus. That means, they may not have heard of the virgin birth, or if Jesus is God or not. How much doctrine does a person need to know in order to be saved, is my definition of essential. So, I understand your exclusion of commonly held doctrine from the essentials. We might have the same idea of what an essential is.  

 

Well if that is the definition of essential then I would say all that is needed is what the thief on the cross said.

[another_poster]

  Today, everyone has a 'story' to tell.  But few seem to have witnesses to share......

 

Jesus spent a lot of time telling stories did he not? Usually called parables.

[other one]

 

 

Thanks.

 

In my opinion, an essential would be the doctrines, beliefs one needs in order to be saved. In my opinion, every true believer must have a saving gospel.  

 

I have talked to people who were not raised in a 'christian' environment. Christian environment means the person was exposed to the teaching of Christianity, even if their exposure was a liberal church, they would have heard certain doctrines. Instead, I am talking about people who were not raised or exposed to a christian environment, so essentially no little to nothing about Jesus. That means, they may not have heard of the virgin birth, or if Jesus is God or not. How much doctrine does a person need to know in order to be saved, is my definition of essential. So, I understand your exclusion of commonly held doctrine from the essentials. We might have the same idea of what an essential is.  

 

Well if that is the definition of essential then I would say all that is needed is what the thief on the cross said.

 

In a sense yes....   however the thief on the cross had one advantage on us.....   he died shortly after making his decision....   he really didn't have to live his convictions...   sometimes it's just not that simple.

[Shimshon]

.

Edited July 19, 2019 by Shimshon

[angels4u]

If this could be our guide line...

 

http://carm.org/answers-theological-test.

 

Every church will have their own doctrine and I believe that is good so we can recognize if they teach Gods word . 

[JohnD]

I have heard several people in leadership, on TV and now locally say, we don't need doctrine. That doctrine divides and division is not good.

 

What do you all think?

 

Biblical doctrine is essential.

 

Man made traditions (cloaked in doctrinal dogma) is from the pit of hell.

 

Mark 7:13 (KJV)

13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

[Qnts2]

 

I have heard several people in leadership, on TV and now locally say, we don't need doctrine. That doctrine divides and division is not good.

 

What do you all think?

 

Biblical doctrine is essential.

 

Man made traditions (cloaked in doctrinal dogma) is from the pit of hell.

 

Mark 7:13 (KJV)

13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

 

 

Jesus did not oppose all tradition. He practiced some established traditions. But he opposed traditions which were counter to the scripture. Or needlessly added to the law.