What Would This Verse Mean to You?

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Ron

It means what it says OP.

Trouble is doctrine can mean anything to anybody.....wait.. there is another scripture.


Jdg 21:25... every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

Doctrine can change if you believe "enlightened progressives"

Would not Parham, Seymore, and others have been considered "enlightened progressives"? What about those at Arroyo Seco? When they received progressive ideas, (i.e. Holy Ghost and tongues, Jesus name baptism, oneness of God) would they not have been "enlightened progressives" during their time? At what point does enlightenment cease for the seeker who is hard after God? If we compare our approach to those progressive men in the early 1900's upon whome the Spirit dwelled, would we seem persuant of deeper and greater experiences with God (like those men), or would we seem more slatwart and backwards, trying to preserve untenable traditionalism in the light of the Spirit of God drawing us into new dimensions in Him?

What is the doctrine? The doctrine was "once delivered" in the inspired writings of scripture. Any doctrine not specifically supported by the proponderance of scripture, is simply man's interpretation and application of bible doctrine and principle. What seems to be the plague among many in apostolic pentecost today, is that they are exalting man's interpretations and application, over and above, or at least equivalent to, the specific testimony of scripture. This is not the ideal approach to bible "doctrine". Interpretations, and more specifically applications of bible principle, can evolve and change over time. That doesn't mean the doctrine itself has changed, it meanst the former applications are no longer relevant (i.e. as preaching against radio ay at one time been relevant, but would be considered completely absurd today...).

The problem is not dividing and offending specific bible doctrine, the problem is clinging to and defending untenable tradition. What does the bible say about holding to and exalting man's tradition above the clear doctrine of scripture? The bible is clear that unity must be strived for and preserved:

1 Cor 1:10
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
KJV

Division over untenable tradition is much more grevious to the Holy Ghost, IMO, than those who have progressive ideas over methodology (NOT BIBLE DOCTRINE). If it can be supported that a division is based on clear BIBLE DOCTRINE, and not human applications, then it may be justified. But the proof of a clear doctrinal deviance is on the burden of the one who wants to divide and avoid the other. They are the ones who must justify their actions. And if they are incorrect, and avoid, and shun, and disassemble themselves from a brother in the gospel over some innucuous application or interpretation, or for the abandoning of a untenable tradition, it may be so that the divider is the one with the grevious mark against them...

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Would not Parham, Seymore, and others have been considered "enlightened progressives"? What about those at Arroyo Seco? When they received progressive ideas, (i.e. Holy Ghost and tongues, Jesus name baptism, oneness of God) would they not have been "enlightened progressives" during their time? At what point does enlightenment cease for the seeker who is hard after God? If we compare our approach to those progressive men in the early 1900's upon whome the Spirit dwelled, would we seem persuant of deeper and greater experiences with God (like those men), or would we seem more slatwart and backwards, trying to preserve untenable traditionalism in the light of the Spirit of God drawing us into new dimensions in Him?

What is the doctrine? The doctrine was "once delivered" in the inspired writings of scripture. Any doctrine not specifically supported by the proponderance of scripture, is simply man's interpretation and application of bible doctrine and principle. What seems to be the plague among many in apostolic pentecost today, is that they are exalting man's interpretations and application, over and above, or at least equivalent to, the specific testimony of scripture. This is not the ideal approach to bible "doctrine". Interpretations, and more specifically applications of bible principle, can evolve and change over time. That doesn't mean the doctrine itself has changed, it meanst the former applications are no longer relevant (i.e. as preaching against radio ay at one time been relevant, but would be considered completely absurd today...).

The problem is not dividing and offending specific bible doctrine, the problem is clinging to and defending untenable tradition. What does the bible say about holding to and exalting man's tradition above the clear doctrine of scripture? The bible is clear that unity must be strived for and preserved:

1 Cor 1:10
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
KJV

Division over untenable tradition is much more grevious to the Holy Ghost, IMO, than those who have progressive ideas over methodology (NOT BIBLE DOCTRINE). If it can be supported that a division is based on clear BIBLE DOCTRINE, and not human applications, then it may be justified. But the proof of a clear doctrinal deviance is on the burden of the one who wants to divide and avoid the other. They are the ones who must justify their actions. And if they are incorrect, and avoid, and shun, and disassemble themselves from a brother in the gospel over some innucuous application or interpretation, or for the abandoning of a untenable tradition, it may be so that the divider is the one with the grevious mark against them...

bump

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

bump

Excellent thoughts, B.D. For once, I think we agree without me dissembling over a quibble.

They are the ones who must justify their actions. And if they are incorrect, and avoid, and shun, and disassemble themselves from a brother in the gospel over some innucuous application or interpretation, or for the abandoning of a untenable tradition, it may be so that the divider is the one with the grevious mark against them...

Well put.

[Nina]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

1 Cor 1:10
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
KJV

Division over untenable tradition is much more grevious to the Holy Ghost, IMO, than those who have progressive ideas over methodology (NOT BIBLE DOCTRINE).

What God has joined together let NO MAN put asunder.
We should be slow to amputate part of the body... some day we my need that hand.

[Carpenter]

Originally Posted by Old Paths

COME ON!!

It would be nice to meet you.

I must warn you...

It won't be Elder Groce!

Well, you are going to have to work pretty hard to beat him on the graciousness, kindness and sermon length aspect ratio.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Excellent thoughts, B.D. For once, I think we agree without me dissembling over a quibble.



Well put.

After having reread my post, I wish I would have used the firefox browser! There are so many typos, fatfingers, and mispellings I feel rather mortified. BTW, are yu saying that you usually don't agree with me? Or that you usually defer to dissembling and quibbling with me? haha...

[Old Paths]

Originally Posted by Carpenter

Well, you are going to have to work pretty hard to beat him on the graciousness, kindness and sermon length aspect ratio.

LENGTH!!!

You got to be kidding, right?


Hee heeeeeeeeeeeee