By observation from several professing Christians I have encountered in WP, I have come to the conclusion that devil, death, and deceiver pale in comparison with “doctrine” to be cringed when spoken of. I do not question some have truly given their lives to Jesus. However, it is headscratching when these “Born again” believers ascribe sticking to sound doctrine as being Pharisaical.
It is quite ironic really since the very people who call those who urge people to return to sound doctrine which is actually a biblical prescription of accountability, mirror the reaction of the Pharisees to the blind man who was healed,
“To this they replied, “You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!” And they threw him out.”
John 9:34
The common script actually sounds more like this,“How dare you judge me as if you yourself don’t sin?” See the astounding commonality? Others wrongly assume the word doctrine to mean something completely manmade and even irrelevant. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of manmade false doctrine, but the word doctrine itself is not exclusive to that connotation since the word doctrine is repeatedly mentioned all throughout Scripture.
“Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.”
1 John 9-11 NKJV
“in all things showing yourself to be a pattern of good works; in doctrine showing integrity, reverence, incorruptibility, 8 sound speech that cannot be condemned, that one who is an opponent may be ashamed, having nothing evil to say of you.”
Titus 2:7-8 NKJV
It is true no other special knowledge is required except knowing that Jesus saves initially, but, for one claiming to be Born again with the Holy Spirit residing in the person and hold to the belief they can bypass sound doctrine by reconciling Christianity to doctrines of demons in 1 Timothy 4:1, “But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons…” and still hold to Jesus Christ, they are walking on dangerous grounds.
“…If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples”
John 8:31
Sound doctrine is plain and simply abiding in God’s written Word. Jesus Christ taught the apostles and Scriptures record those very teachings.
If you encounter one who holds to erroneous beliefs that contradict Scripture that 1) repentance is not necessary, 2) you need works to “keep” your salvation (rather than it being the evidence of the Holy Spirit’s sanctifying work in the believer), 3) grace covers a deliberate and continual lifestyle of sin (proof they are dead to the Holy Spirit’s conviction), 4) God can manifest Himself in other ways other than what He revealed 5) there is no literal Second Coming, 6) hell is not literal, 7) the Bible is not applicable in how we ought to live our lives in these modern times (as if God will cater to our standards), run!!!
Doctrine is so important because it will show how much you love Jesus. Doctrine is the teachings of the Bible or in other words, it is God’s Word. Like you pointed out in 1 Timothy that there is bad doctrine (doctrine of demons). Sound doctrine is believing and teaching what the Bible says and false doctrine is a teaching that contradicts the Bible. Christians who do not want to defend doctrine shows their state with Jesus. I guarantee you that if it’s something in this world that they love they will defend it to the end. So, whoever defends God’s Word is because they love Jesus but whoever does not, then how can they proclaim love for the One who they don’t care to defend?
Amen. New converts are vulnerable of intaking false doctrine all the time (but NO ONE really is exempt) and being that the residue of the flesh is still strong, they can easily reconcile their Christianity to what is seemingly loving in terms of the world’s definition which under scrutiny actually condones lawlessness.
You are completely and totally correct. Anyone who opposes doctrine is, in fact, opposing truth. Correcting false doctrine is one thing; claiming to have no doctrine is something else entirely. J.
-claiming to have no doctrine-
Yup, as if what they believe is not doctrine in itself especially when they put it in writing…
Thanks for visiting.
Reblogged this on Pilgrim’s Progress revisited – Christiana on the narrow way and commented:
In our day some Christians downplay and even despise doctrine. Caeli’s post helps us to think think clearly about it.
I appreciate the reblog Maria and thank you.
Caeli, this post is timely, like Alex’s “Cookie”. They’ve both helped me and encouraged me. Thanks!
And likewise God is using you to encourage me by letting me know it was of help and encouragement to you and you’re most welcome!
I’m glad, little sister.
🙂
I got saved in my teens from a non-Christian home and I never understood why some Christians and so-called Christians are almost allergic to “doctrines.”
The Pharisees were strictly adhering to their added traditions which were in direct contradiction to God’s commands. Some “toddler” Christians can’t seem to make the distinction that strictly abiding as long as we don’t contradict the written word is actually prescribed in John 15:7. The “allergy” has something to do with being oblivious to what is written. The reaction is quite a revealer of where someone stands in their faith walk.
“The reaction is quite a revealer of where someone stands in their faith walk.”<–I have found this to be very very true. Thank you sister.
Reblogged this on The X Mass H8rs Blog.
Sherry, I greatly appreciate your reblog. Thank you.
YouTube search “Gail Riplinger New Age Bible Versions”
I do not trust Gail Riplinger. I made a post about KJV onlyism. It is a very short one but that is what I think of it.
https://modconspiracy.wordpress.com/2017/10/09/the-only-reliable-english-translation/
KJV only-ism was a terms created by the satanists. have you done the research yourself into the different versions? Have you seen the stuff from Gil Riplinger all the way? KJV is the only trustworthy word of God the newer versions are perverted, they remove Jesus Christ and replace his place as God. I’m not gonna spell it out for you, it’s up to you to research this stuff.
Proverbs 1:5-7 A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
I find it interesting you assume I have not looked into or heard about Gail Riplinger before, maybe even prior to your knowledge of her. What I find baffling is how she has convinced someone as logical as Kent Hovind as she plagiarized and has the audacity to slander people who spent their lives devoted to biblical text.
Dwell on this logic if you may. If the KJV is translated to Swahili, Finnish, Chinese or any other language for that matter, it no longer is the KJV. It automatically becomes a new translation in another language. This is the point I was trying to make in my old KJV-Only post.
If you’re concerned about New Age, God delivered me from that and it is part of my testimony. My main versions are the NKJV and the NIV. I have the KJV but no one, not some questionable woman (GR) can convince me to burn my bibles. I don’t think the Holy Spirit will convict me to do that any time soon.
I have no plans on participating in a cult mentality. It is like the Jehovah’s Witness who enforce their adherents to read only one version, in this case, the New World Translation. In your case, the KJV. Just think about the similarity there.
I love that particular quote in Proverbs. I also allowed your chapter quotes on my posts. I have listened to what you have to say and my hope is that the Holy Spirit will open your eyes about this tactic to discourage people from actually reading the word of God.
[…] Doctrine […]
[…] Doctrine […]