Comments on: Clarifying Our Discussion

By: Richard May

Richard May — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 14:35:33 +0000

I appreciate that 1 Tim 4 and Rom 14 comparison, Ed. In that same vein, I compare Paul’s instruction to the Colossians “Don’t let anyone judge you in regard to what you eat…” to the instruction to the Romans “don’t judge…, but accept”. Thanks.

By: ED Boggess

ED Boggess — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:57:38 +0000

All food is given for man’s good, Mk 7. Some deny this, doctrine: veggies only, but do so to the Lord, Rom 14. Others teach against some foods, doctrines of demons, and do so against the Lord, 1 Tim 4. Why the difference? Apparently the difference involved the heart. The Romans were simply practicing to the level of their maturity. But the 1 Tim 4 folks were “speaking lies in hypocrisy”. Of course, this does not solve the practical application because we cannot see the heart, but “the Lord knows those who are His.”

By: Realizations about graceconversation.com « the7ones.com

Realizations about graceconversation.com « the7ones.com — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:47:56 +0000

[...] are a few realizations I have come to as a result of reading the comments on [...]

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 07:07:18 +0000

I would agree with the “all” problem in defining terms. I would also say to “error” semantically has challenges too.

By: Bob Brandon

Bob Brandon — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 03:47:33 +0000

When does “doctrinal error” condemn in the NT? What really mattered then?

By: Randy

Randy — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:23:42 +0000

I think you make a valid point, Richard. I think we all fall prey to this way of thinking. I know I have looked at various debates and weighed them by strength of the argument.

By: Richard May

Richard May — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:20:52 +0000

I’m following you here, John Mark. Is the question less about the issue and more about the motive. Does God consider the heart behind the belief and practice? If “not all doctrinal error condemns” is that because of the nature of the error or the heart of the sinner.

By: David P Himes

David P Himes — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:05:00 +0000

It was noteworthy, that Phil’s acknowledgement on the controversy over IM is more disruptive than that over the Spirit, because it observably changes what we do each week.

But also noteworthy is that Phil chose to say that IM is divisive.

Actually, it seems most often that people who oppose IM are divisive, because most in the CoC who have no problem with IM have tolerated those who oppose it for years.

Am I being divisive by arguing that the Text does not define IM as doctrinal error and is therefore an acceptable form of worship?

I think not, it is those who refuse to fellowship me, or seek to suppress my freedom to express myself in worship that are being divisive.

To John Mark’s point — it is the heart which divides and separates us either from each other or from God. Why else would Jesus command to love each other the way he loved us.

By: Randy

Randy — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:57:37 +0000

Obviously, disagreements over the Holy Spirit residing in the believer are not fatal doctrines ( per Phils reply ), but IM seems to be in many conservative churches. I agree with JMH … So when does “doctrinal error” condemn? How do we determine that? We allow some disagreements, while condemning others.

To me, the Holy Spirit residing in the believer is a “bigger doctrine” than that of IM. But, as Phil confessed, we allow this disagreement. And the reasoning he sited, was because IM is disruptive and divisive, while the Holy Spirit disagreement is not….is this how we decide??? And would not this be matter of opinion?

By: Terrell Lee

Terrell Lee — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:42:54 +0000

So when does “doctrinal error” condemn? How do we determine that? This post is on the right track if it takes one more step, the one John Mark requests–an answer to his question:
“So, some doctrinal error condemns and some
do not. But all doctrinal error has the
potential. So, what makes the difference?”