How Do You Feel About Stepping Out Of The Box Of Traditional Doctrine?

[Zed]

Welcome!

[Donillo]

Most of us here, including myself. only want Biblical doctrine.

....excuse my manners.........welcome!

Biblical doctrine, what is that? Whether IFB or other denomination, all doctrines are derived from the Reformation or Catholic church or more modern theologians. There are so many and how can IFB or any other denomination claim their doctrine is strictly from the Bible? If it's a church, they get their doctrine from somewhere, whether Matthew Henry, Calvin, Wesley, BB Warfield, or someone else.
What I see is that doctrine puts God in a box. Doctrine places limits on the operation of the holy spirit and it comes through in sermons. For example, a church that espouses a cessationist doctrine against the continuation of the gifts of the holy spirit will in effect squelch the operation of the gifts in its members. They will not seek the gifts and would be discouraged from doing so anyway.
Textualism is a form of legalism that is cold and rigid.

[heartstrings]

Biblical doctrine is the light which comes from the unadulterated, inerrant, "very pure" Word of God. Anything else is subject to doubt, and scrutiny including a few interpretations of a few IFB's. No man is perfect; me included. I'd rather have the "Lamp unto my feet" and the "words of eternal life".  I'll stick with the text of the King James Bible, instead of man's Koolaid. Jesus said "my sheep know my voice".and His voice is found in the pages of his Book. If you stray from that, I'm not following.

[swathdiver]

Biblical doctrine, what is that? Whether IFB or other denomination, all doctrines are derived from the Reformation or Catholic church or more modern theologians. There are so many and how can IFB or any other denomination claim their doctrine is strictly from the Bible? If it's a church, they get their doctrine from somewhere, whether Matthew Henry, Calvin, Wesley, BB Warfield, or someone else.
What I see is that doctrine puts God in a box. Doctrine places limits on the operation of the holy spirit and it comes through in sermons. For example, a church that espouses a cessationist doctrine against the continuation of the gifts of the holy spirit will in effect squelch the operation of the gifts in its members. They will not seek the gifts and would be discouraged from doing so anyway.
Textualism is a form of legalism that is cold and rigid.

 

Hi Donillo,

 

Point 1:   I gather you're not up on the history of Baptists.  They are not now and never were part of the Reformation or Catholic church, both of which hunted and murdered tens of millions of baptists (not always in name) only until recently.

 

Point 2:  IFB, Independent Baptists are not a denomination.  Denominations are evil.  Every Baptist church if it follows the model that Jesus Christ laid out for us in the New Testament is independent with Christ as its head.  The head of every scriptural new testament church is Jesus Christ right after the pastor.  Not some deacons board, denomination headquarters, pope, etc.

 

Point 3:  Doctrine is very important to God, he mentions it 55 times in the bible and 49 times in the New Testament alone.  Doctrine is very important to God.  Do a word search in your bible on the word and discover why.  It has been my experience that those who bemoan bible doctrine are Burger King Christians, they want to have it (God) their way, the vast majority of which have never been born again the bible's way.  

 

Point 4:  My radar warning receiver went off when I began reading your last four sentences.  I detect Pentecostal views!  Those gifts were given for a time as a sign to the jews.  Those gifts ceased when the New Testament was completed.  Peter, who walked with Jesus, said that he/we had something better than having personally known him; we have his Word and that's what we're to rely on, not signs and wonders and our wicked hearts.  A Christian is commanded to rely on the scriptures, preserved in the King James Bible, for ALL matters of faith and practice.

[Donillo]

Hi Donillo,

Point 1: I gather you're not up on the history of Baptists. They are not now and never were part of the Reformation or Catholic church, both of which hunted and murdered tens of millions of baptists (not always in name) only until recently.

Hi Swathdiver,
Yes, I am up on Baptist history but I don't believe it. The IFB church we have been attending for 6 years currently has a pastor who teaches it.


Point 2: IFB, Independent Baptists are not a denomination. Denominations are evil. Every Baptist church if it follows the model that Jesus Christ laid out for us in the New Testament is independent with Christ as its head. The head of every scriptural new testament church is Jesus Christ right after the pastor. Not some deacons board, denomination headquarters, pope, etc.

I ddisagree that IFB is not a denomination. IFB churches preach the same doctrines, have a network of bible colleges, are KJO, etc. They may not have a hierarchy like the other denominations, but they are a denomination and have their roots in the Reformation. Yes I am familiar with the trail of blood. Why claim a successionism that can't be proven? As to the idea that Christ is the head of the local IFB Church I have seen that it is really the pastor who rules and followers must obey. The IFB church then is pastor-centric. Our pastor has has even preached that he is not a servant if the church but rather a servant of the most high god. Further claims absolute authority.

Point 3: Doctrine is very important to God, he mentions it 55 times in the bible and 49 times in the New Testament alone. Doctrine is very important to God. Do a word search in your bible on the word and discover why. It has been my experience that those who bemoan bible doctrine are Burger King Christians, they want to have it (God) their way, the vast majority of which have never been born again the bible's way.

God saved me in a Free Methodist church, yes a denomination that IFB says is evil, isn't that like the Pharisee that thanked god he was not like that publican beating his breast?


Point 4: My radar warning receiver went off when I began reading your last four sentences. I detect Pentecostal views! Those gifts were given for a time as a sign to the jews. Those gifts ceased when the New Testament was completed. Peter, who walked with Jesus, said that he/we had something better than having personally known him; we have his Word and that's what we're to rely on, not signs and wonders and our wicked hearts. A Christian is commanded to rely on the scriptures, preserved in the King James Bible, for ALL matters of faith and practice.

[DaveW]

If it is so bad, why are you still there?
Don't think I would hand around a church run like that......

[Donillo]

.

Point 4: My radar warning receiver went off when I began reading your last four sentences. I detect Pentecostal views! Those gifts were given for a time as a sign to the jews. Those gifts ceased when the New Testament was completed. Peter, who walked with Jesus, said that he/we had something better than having personally known him; we have his Word and that's what we're to rely on, not signs and wonders and our wicked hearts. A Christian is commanded to rely on the scriptures, preserved in the King James Bible, for ALL matters of faith and practice.

This last point is an important one. For hundreds of years since the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, believers didn't have a personal copy of the bible, much less the KJV. If it was essential for believers to have one how could they walk in daily fellowship with God? Why would God make a requirement that could not be met until the 17th century? It is a fallacy that the bible alone is all that's necessary to guide a Christian. To believe that negates the very purpose of Christ's death and sending us the Holy spirit. In the beginning was The Word and the Word was with god and the Word was god. That is Jesus, not the book. Yes, the bible is holy scripture and it tells us about Jesus and the redemption story. But Jesus before he departed promised to send the holy spirit, not the completed canon.

[Donillo]

If it is so bad, why are you still there?
Don't think I would hand around a church run like that......

Hi Dave,
That's a great question. It's a long story which I won't bore you with. Suffice it to say that my DW, although we agree on our opinions of that church and doctrines, doesn't feel a need to leave like I do. And I won't leave unless she comes with me. We have dear friends there which to her are reason to stay. When the time comes, well return to the Free Methodist church.

[John81]

Could you please explain what is better (or what is good) about the Free Methodist church? While I'm familiar with United Methodist churches, I'm not very familiar at all with Free Methodist.

[Donillo]

Could you please explain what is better (or what is good) about the Free Methodist church? While I'm familiar with United Methodist churches, I'm not very familiar at all with Free Methodist.

Hi John,

The Free Methodist church is a holiness denomination and is basically Wesleyan in doctrine. They parted ways with the Methodists in the late 1800's due to their liberal tendencies. They have the same prohibitions regarding smoking, drinking, etc...as does IFB, but are not KJV only. They believe in entire sanctification and place more emphasis on the Holy Spirit. They don't separate off from the rest of the Christian churches and do collaborate with them. They allow women to preach and teach (men). They have a hierarchy. They allow more freedom in the Spirit and the pastors are not authoritarian, etc....

[Donillo]

Another thing... Our IFB Church practices censorship. We have a library and there is a list of prohibited books in the Christian genre. I was surprised (although I shouldn't be) to find among them Jan Karon's books. I've read a few of them and the priest character (Episcopal ) seems like a Godly man who genuinely cares for souls to be saved. I thought it ridiculous just because the main character in her books is an Episcopal priest that a church would not allow it in their library.

[HappyChristian]

A church has the right to decide what books they will or will not carry in their library.  And the ministers of that church are usually the ones who are entrusted with that decision.  If you want to read Jan Karon's books, buy 'em or get 'em from your public library.  Complaining about your church library because they don't have them is a wee bit childish, IMO. 

 

I wouldn't want my church library to have those books in them - and it isn't because the priest is episcopal. And, I'm sorry - none of the books I read in that series (and I didn't read them all) show the priest pointing anyone to salvation.  They are "feel-good" books which don't have any real meat to them. 

 

Just so you are clear on the matter, not having a book or author in a library is not censorship. I work in a public library, and believe me, there are reasons books are bought or not that have nothing to do with censorship.  Mayhap your church has said that the reason they don't have the books is due to the religion of the priest.  So?  It's not censorship - it's choice.  And a church should make choices based on scripture.  There is nothing in scripture that says a church library must have certain books or not. 

 

Understanding the doctrine of separation, and the doctrine that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, and that the ministers of the church have to answer to God for the congregation would go far in seeing that even books in a church library need to be subject to discernment.

[Donillo]

Thank you for your response but I don't think it necessary to belittle my comments by describing them as childish. I obviously do have issues with IFB, that is true and yes, they have a right to decide what goes in their library. This is the wrong place for that.

[HappyChristian]

I didn't belittle anything.  If we believe the Bible, there are doctrines to be followed.  And one of those is, in a church situation, following the leadership.  If said leadership is scripturally wrong, we need to take steps to either replace them or leave said church.  If we don't, we become childish when we find little things like what books are or are not in the library (unless they are really unscriptural books) as something to nitpick about.  You're right, this is the wrong place for that...

[Ukulelemike]

So, despite the OP, I'm not seeing anything about stepping outside of the box. I DID read that following doctrine puts God in a box, but if they are HIS doctrines, then its His box, as well. If they are doctrines of men or of devils, then that's our box and we should open it up.

 

So, what kind of boxes are we taking about stepping out of? Want to discuss doctrines? Bring them up and let's get into scripture and see if it is doctrine or not. If its about whether something is a fundamental or not, lets discuss them.

 

By the way, not every box of men is necessarily a bad box-shall we discuss that? 

 

Donillo, you have issues with IFB churches-okay, that's cool, so do I and I AM IFB. Lets discuss it and see if there are boxes we should get out of.