In the little spare time I have I have been reading through the works of Carl Ketcherside (which were recently given to me as a gift of grace). I am currently in volume 9 and hope to finish the set in the near future. There are pages that I find myself in disagreement. There are pages that I eagerly say "Amen" too. All is very good reading no matter where he comes down. Yesterday I read a short article by David Reagan in the October 1968 issue of Mission Messenger. Perhaps it was the year "1968" that caused me to be sensitive to the passage (I always like to find out about the time I was born). It is called "A Moment for Thought" and I would like to share this brief article with you. I share it because I think Reagan makes us look in the mirror and examine ourselves ...
"A Moment For Thought" by David R. Reagan
"I recently read about a poll conducted among American Catholics. The most startling revelation of this poll was the fact that more than 60% of American Catholics feel that abstinence from meat on Friday is more important than Jesus' admonition to 'love our neighbor as ourself." [sic].
Rather shocking isn't it? In fact, I would go so far as to say it is downright appalling and pitiful that so many "Christians" could have such a warped concept of what Christianity is all about.
Yet, before we get on our self-righteous high horse and start condemning the 'pagan' Catholics, let's pause for a moment and ask ourselves how members of the
I have no doubt our response would be so overwhelmingly in favor of abstinence from musical instruments that we would make the Catholics look wishy washy in their preference for abstinence from meat.
Similarly, I think I know what the response of our brethren would be if the same question were worded differently - "which is more important, regular church attendance, or love of neighbor?" or, "which is of greater importance, the systematic observance of the Lord's Supper upon the first day of the week, or the love of one's fellowman?" Again, I have no doubt that the love of man would finish a poor second among our brethren.
Our explanation of the Catholic response would be the classic one, 'What can you expect from people who never study the Bible, but simply do what the Pope tells them?" How would you explain the fact that we who pride ourselves on our Bible study would agree with the Catholic response?" (Mission Messenger, October 1968, p.158 in volume 9 of the works of Carl Ketcherside).
End of Quote
This is a thought provoking voice from the past. I have been meditating on the question now for a day. I am not so sure where we might come down 38 years after this short piece was written. But the question is an important one . . . and how we respond says volumes about who we are as the People of God.
One day a scholar in the torah came to Jesus and asked, "which is the greatest commandment of the Law? Jesus replied, 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your mind. And the second is like it: love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
I wonder if Jesus really meant it?
Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
42 comments:
I used that quote during a series on worship a couple of years ago. Very thought provoking.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Hi Bobby,
Very pertinent quesiton. Maybe some people think things like a cappella music are the real differentiators between the so-called "true church" and the rest, so in that sense those are the important issues to them. But of course that is misguided thinking on several levels...not the least of which is, Jesus said loving God and our neighbor is more important than anything else
A good and timely article.
In regards to Carl Ketcherside. What a hero for our fellowship he was. I believe he was a must needed voice and he has helped me take off some of my own spiritual blinders.
as for the Matthew 22:34-40,
didn't you hear, they found the Foy E. Wallacy papyrus which predates any know copy of matthew and in it you read that not being a premillinialist is the greatest command.
Thanks for sharing this article, Bobby. I wish I had discoverd the works of Carl Ketcherside in my earlier life. He was truly a man ahead of his times. In my college years, he and his "associates" were always spoken of as "anathema." But I know now he was dead on the target.
I'm sure you know that almost all of his written and and some of his spoken works can be read and listen to at this web site.
http://www.unity-in-diversity.org/
Peace.
Bobby; I can't seem to find any of the first choices in the bible, because they are not there.
Bobby
I think the questions are misdirected. Which is more important--church attendance or loving your neighbor? It is like the speeder who is stopped by the highway patrol. He says, "Why aren't you out catching bank robbers?" In other words, stopping speed violaters is a waste of time. "Catching bank robbers" may be more important, but there are fewer of them and probably no more deaths are caused by bank robbery than reckless speeding. Either answer is fraught with difficulties. "Which is more important, your heart of your lungs?" Not a good question to ask or to answer. So, loving your neighbor is more important than church attendance, or a cappella music, or whatever--does that reduce these other matters to trivia? If not, what is the purpose of the question?
What's more important: saying that loving your neighbor is the most important or actually loving my neighbor for whom Christ died regardless of what they think is most important?
Sean you make a great, indeed outstanding, point. We are called to love regardless what the other person thinks, believes, ... or how they act. Jesus did say something about our enemy ...
I pray for you and the brothers/sisters in Mexico City. God does a mighty work through you.
Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
browser,
Because something is not of "first" or "most" importance does not reduce the thing to mere trivia. The argument does not follow.
Jesus entertained the question. He also answered it. There are matters that are the "greatest" and then there are things that are not.
Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Bobby,
The shocking question that comes to my mind is, are many of us more loyal to "the Lord's church" than to the Lord?
Thanks for this timely post.
Grace and peace,
Royce Ogle
sort of puts our dogma in perspective dosn't it. Thanks for sharing
So many questions. My mind is really (my favorite adjective) being challenged.
Penetrating and needed thoughts. The big problem is not the humble desire to be careful with application of Christ's authority, but rather the Pharisaical disregard for the weighter matters. "These ought ye to have done without leaving the other undone."
The fact that we dance around it so much seems to be evidence Jesus really meant it!
Jesus did tell his disciples "Love one another as I have loved you, by this all men will know that you are my disciples" (John 13:34-35 - Bob's paraphrase). If we do not love ONE ANOTHER then the world at large will not listen to our message and believe our faith.
Jesus also said to the Pharisees in Matthew 23:23 that they are careful to tithe the tinniest garden herbs (and probably feel rather righteous about doing so) but neglect the weightier matters of the law (justice, mercy, faithfulness). They should focus on the weightier matters without neglecting the smaller matters. We also as Christians today should focus on what the NT identifies as the truly important without neglecting the smaller things.
Well, we can love one another till the cows come back home again one day and live in "renewed" pastures of green. Pastures "renewed" by the power of their gloriously spiritual bodies that bring cleansing to the fields. An earth where once again cowboys and sheep herders can lie down next to one another without fear of range wars.
BUT- if we don't love God the way "Jesus" loved Him all that self love is worthless.
I wonder if "Love God" has anything to do with obeying God in matters of salvation, worship, life? What if God cares about a cappella worship versus instrumental music as worship? Boy that would sure have something to do with Lovin' the Big Huggy-Bear Daddy in the sky. [That was me trying to fit in with the majority of the posts. I've decide that peace/love/dove is back so as an old hippie I can schmooze God with the best. :)]
AW
Everybody sing: "All we need is love ... love ... love is all we need."
and I would add: "And a good cup of coffee".
OH Yeah, "AND DOWN WITH THE CHURCH OF CHRIST".... can I join ya'lls club now?
GOD IS LOVE vs/ LOVE IS GOD [hmmmm?]
'HELLO BOYS, I'M BAAACK!'
So, since we have ascertained that:
"Because something is not of "first" or "most" importance does not reduce the thing to mere trivia. The argument does not follow." as fact.
Question to all:
Which is "most" important: Loving God or Loving your neighbor as yourself?
Which should we do FIRST? Which is FOUNDATIONAL?
AW
Don we are so glad you are "back." Your sarcasm has been missed greatly. Though I enjoyed the sarcasm and could smile ... I do not think you have moved the conversation forward at all. It makes for poor argumentation in fact.
Loving God does has something to do with obeying his commandments. I haven't read any one who said different.
It is also true that God himself said that there are more important and less important matters.
As for the new heavens and the new earth you have offered nothing to discount what Scripture teaches in many places.
Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Oh and as far as IM goes and God's concern over it ... It almost seems that God's only concern about it that the musicians be in tune!!
If you can find one negative word about IM in the Scriptures please let me know where it is.
Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Excellant thoughts here brother! Very thought provoking qoutes (spelling error?) there too. I've been reading In The Imitation of Christ. It was written in the 15th or 16th century. Very thought provoking stuff. God bless you and your ministry. Keep up the good work!
Bobby, in your response to Don, are you saying that only explicit negative statements communicate God's will to us on a particular subject or activity?
What about 1Samuel 13:8-14? Saul offers the burnt offering while waiting for Samuel. Samuel tells him that he acted foolishly because he has not kept the commandment of the Lord. It seems to me that Saul could have argued that God did not explicitly say that other tribes besides Levi could not offer the burnt offering. Yet he lost the kingdom because he didn't understand the implication of God's positive command for the Levites to be the ones to offer the burnt offering.
Or 2Samuel 6:6-19 and 1Chronicles 13:5-14; 15:11-15. Of course you know the story. David is bringing the ark back to Jerusalem on an ox cart. Uzzah reaches out to steady the ark when the ox stumble and God strikes him dead. 2Samuel doesn't fully explain how David finally got the ark to Jerusalem but 1Chronicles does. He assembles the priests and the Levites and discusses with them the proper way to carry the ark - on poles by the proper Levite clan. God positively stated how He wanted the ark carried and Uzzah (and David) violated that ordinance. There was no explicitly negative command for anyone outside of the stated Levi clan that they could not carry it or touch it.
Or Hebrews 7:11-16 where the writer says that Jesus couldn't be a priest on the earth according to the Law of Moses since Jesus came from the tribe of Judah and God specifically identified the priests as coming from Levi. So again through implication it would be wrong for anyone outside of the tribe of Levi to act as a priest.
These suggest to me that when God positively identifies a certain way of doing something that it is not right for us to change that way. Don't these passages at least demonstrate that sometimes God expects us to read His implications in the positive commands He gives us? What do you think about these passages and what I've said? I don't know all your history with others so I'm just sharing with you my thinking on this subject.
Brian, I know your tendencies (I'm not sure how to describe those tendencies LOL) from reading your own blog however I couldn't pass up at least a suggestion that you should read Jim McGuiggan's "The Kingdom of God and the Planet Earth." This is a response to Hal Lindsey's "Late Great Planet Earth" which is Lindsey's explanation of his dispensational premillennialism. Jim makes a pretty good case that the dispensational premillenialist has to deny the cross of Christ as the focal point of all redemptive history to stay true to his program. If Jim is correct then I would say "not being a premillennialst" is perhaps above even the greatest command.
Just as there are millions of devout, practicing Mormons who have no clue that their religion teaches that they're in line to become gods of their own creations, there are millions of devout believers in Christ, whose understanding of eschatology would fall into the premillenial camp, who have no idea of the drastic implications of such an understanding. We who do understand those implications should be far gentler in our handling of our Lord's little ones.
I agree with every bit of your exegesis of the Hebrew scriptures, Bob. If there were a single positive command concerning musical worship in the NT, the issue would be comparable to the Levitical priesthood question. Since there is not, we should once again be far gentler with our Lord's little ones.
I agree with many of the arguments in favor of acapella worship. I just don't agree with those that are founded on biased exegesis.
in HIS love,
Nick
PS - Bobby, can you email me at nick_carly99@bellsouth.net? I emailed you a while back and I think it got lost. I need to pick your brain a bit.
Bob,
I appreciate your coming back and offering a critique of my comments. That is what this is all about: As iron sharpens iron so one person sharpens another." And I assume we are all trying to study and show ourselves approved. These things are taken for granted.
But I do not agree with your analysis. Saul was long in doing his own thing. His rather arrogant move was but the culmination of a lengthy process of his heart moving far from the Lord. Saul did not merely challenge Samuel's authority (which he did) he also states clearly that "I HAVE NOT SOUGHT THE LORD'S FAVOR" (1 Sam 13:12). Saul should have pleaded the Fifth ... but here he incriminates himself terribly! This is the root of all of Saul's problems.
The Chronicler reduces Saul to a footnote and makes no mention, at all, of the episode in 1 Sam 13. The Chronicler is of course interpreting Israel's earlier history for his own day so it is interesting how this inspired exegete reads previous Scripture. The Chronicler says that Saul was "unfaithful to the LORD; he did not keep the word of the LORD and even consulted a medium for guidance, and did not inquire of the LORD. SO the LORD put him to death" (1 C 10.13-14).
That is a fascinating interpretation of Saul's life. The word "inquire" here in the NIV is literally the word "seek" which is a key term that pops up all over in Chronicles. Saul's ultimate failure is that he did not "seek" the Lord ... but he did seek guidance from a medium. What an outrage. So tragic was Saul that, though the Chronicler knows Saul fell on his own sword he actually says the Lord EXECUTED him!!
As for offering sacrifices the torah is explicit about who is supposed to offer those. To compare this to IM is, in my view, a grasping at straws.
The story of Uzzah is an overworked and grossly abused text. I'll email you some notes on that text. Uzzah did not simply make a minor technical mistake. Ultimately Uzzah died because of DAVID's arrogance. But more of that in the email because I have posted on that previously.
Hebrews does not support your case either. The Torah made it explicit who could be a High Priest in Israel. Only a person from tribe of Levi. This is quite explicit. God did not hide this. But the Hebrew Bible also knows of another priesthood, that of the king of Salem. Now before the Hebrew Preacher came along other Jews had also talked about this Melchizedek fellow. The Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrates keen interest in him, so the Preacher is not being original here. He however says that Jesus is a legitmate priest because he is of the order of Melchizedek. The Preacher has to explain God's explicit words and he does so by pointing to an alternative tradition in God's word that is "explicit." There is no supposed "argument from silence" in Hebrews. The writer "loudly" quotes from Psalm 110.4 to demonstrate the authenticity of his position.
Now originally Don had spoke about God's care and concern over a cappella music and his disdain for instruments. I challenged that statement. I simply asked for a single "explicit" passage in scripture that shows God has the slightest displeasure in IM. We have plenty of Scripture that shows God ordained its use and that he loves it in heaven ... and there is not one passage ... not one ... that implies he takes any different view.
Bob thanks for kind manner in which you have asked me to look deeper. I hope that I have been able to do the same and in the same manner.
To God, alone, be the glory.
Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Bob,
I need to comment on your premillennial note. I have been blessed by many of Jim McGuiggan's works. He has a website that has some good stuff on it. If you don't have a link let me know and I'll send it to you.
Jim's little book on "The Reign of God" is a very good little book.
But the claim that "premillennialism" denies the cross of Jesus borders on absurd. Yes I said "absurd." That claim by McGuiggan was made a long time ago and it would be interesting to see if he would nuance it a bit.
First the claim does not recognize that there are shades of premillennialism. Dispensational premillennialism is not the only premillennialism.
James A. Harding was a "classical" premillennialist. Neither you nor Jim could show that he denied the cross in a million years. In fact folks like Harding and R. H. Boll (also a premillennialist) held up the grace of God and the blood of Jesus more powerfully than most in their generation. If I have to take the "amillennial" legalism of Foy Wallace or the "grace" of R. H. Boll then I will take Boll any day.
Some of these themes are explored in my book "Kingdom Come."
I have very little use for Dispensational Premillennialism but I have serious doubts it will cost anyone their salvation. Of course I have little use for the modernistic amillennialism that so many impose upon the text either. I try to be patient and loving with all of my brethren (and sisteren)
Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
An irony just dawned on me as I scrolled through the comments. Is it not interesting that a post calling us to "strictly" take Jesus at his word about the greatest commands has taken us so far afield??
Is it possible that we are still more concerned with mint, dill and cummin than what Jesus called called us to.
Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Bobby,
Interesting article and fascinating responses. I concure with your last note and suppose, to some extent, the direction of the comments validates the original question posed.
Ben Overby
Rochester, NY
http://benoverby.wordpress.com
Bobby, my comments on interpretation and dispensational premillenialism were not designed to determine the savedness or lostness of people who are part of those programs. Rather it was to determine how you and I see things in the Scriptures. Yes, I know that there are shades of premillennialism (I have read quite a bit of George Eldon Ladd's historic premillennialism and some others). I don't know that much about Boll's understanding of the millennial reign so I cannot speak to his beliefs. I also know that quite of few of the men of the "restoration" were post-millennialists. The differing millennial understandings not only divide us but also many in the Protestant world.
Sometimes people do not recognize the implications of things that they believe. Paul told the Corinthians in 1Corinthians 15:12-19 that their belief in their resurrection being past ultimately denies the resurrection of Jesus itself. I'd say that was a pretty serious implication. Paul still addressed them as brethren in spite of the implications of their belief. How long Paul would continue to call them brethren with those implications is something only the Lord knows.
I've forgotten where I read a review (it may have been by a professor at Pepperdine) of the "openness of God" belief that is circulating among the evangelicals where a similar implication was suggested that this system ultimately denies the place of the cross in redemptive history (perhaps his review was not as strong as I've made it out to be but I'm pretty sure he at least explored the idea). Mainly because one of them said in his book that when God sent Jesus He didn't have a "blueprint" for Jesus.
My desire in this comment is not to illicit a response from you but to give you a further look into my understanding of things. I'm glad for the exchange and look forward to our continued discussions.
There are some things in scripture that are hard to understand. We tend to jump into those subjects with both feet, delighting in arguing for one theory or another. It's really pretty easy to do.
Maybe we should follow the pattern of Eph 4-6 instead. That passage describes how we should build one another up, taking on the character traits called for in scripture, learning the simpler and more obvious things first, and putting them into practice. As we mature, and build solidly from the core with undisputed truth, we will be in a better position to understand the more difficult concepts. Then we will not be tossed around by every wind of doctrine. Sometimes the shrill tone of debate exposes the fact that we have not built that way, and are not ready for mature understanding of the more difficult matters. Just a theory.
I have a question, and I apologize that it's going to sound rather ignorant. It is genuine, however, and NOT directed at either side of the issue, so please don't anyone take this as criticism.
My question is ... why is musical instruments an issue at all? WHO is making it the issue? Is it an argument that's come to view because we'd rather not focus on the fact that we're not really seeking the lost as we should be? Why are we wasting our time on it? Do some think that our opinion on musical instruments does matter when it comes to bringing in the lost? Why do some people want to introduce musical instruments to the church of Christ? Why not leave things the way they are and figure out effective ways to motivate the congregations to get out of the building and find some lost people?
Well, that's actually a lot of questions to chew on. Maybe I ought to go post these questions on my own blog, because you're no doubt ready to publish another post. But if anyone wants to chime in before Bobby does move on, please do so!
Bobby,
Not sure if this is off subject at this point, or back on...
I am struggling with what it means to love... It seems, as was commented somewhere above, that it is too easy to drift into the IM discussion and a miriad angles off of it. But what about nitty-gritty love? And I do not mean "keeping his commands" in some sense that confuses the issue. I mean keeping his commands by loving...
How do I love those who want to make an issue of IM? The Bible doesn't. I can argue that too. And you have done some fine thrust and perry here in the comments, btw. But how do I love in this situation?
I am aware of some who make it a mission to love redneck racists. That is the trick within the trick. I am one white boy who is doing a fine job of loving folx of color, but having difficulty loving the racists.
I am inclined toward tough love, but that is not the only love. And I think a heart knows when it is loved, though that is something easy to deceive as well.
I think there are a couple of main roads leading from you post. 32 comments so far have take the other. I am taking the road less traveled here. Given what you have offered, there is a lot to explore within love itself. And I am inclined to think that the creation is groaning as it awaits the sons of God to find it.
Many blessings...
lisa-
IMO: The IM issue is founded in a desire to be a totally self sustained spiritual entity. The original arguments for and against IM were actually arguments about salvation and authority. There are some who want to control matters by making law where there is no law and some who want to control matters by compromising law where there is law.
The IM issue is a red herring. The actual issue is one of authority. Who has it and who doesn't.
I absolutely agree with you. If IM is as most claim a matter of opinion- then why do they make law. If IM is as most of those pro-IM contend a matter rejected by "weaker" brethren then why do they as the supposed stronger brethren not follow Paul's advice? If the IM crowd wants to change what they see as a "redneck Church" then they should simply leave the "rednecks" alone. But they can't. Most who think the way they do can't. They want to insinuate themselves into everything. Because only when every one believes the way they do can they truly feel justified in their beliefs. In this matter they are no different than those in the other extreme camp(s).
There was a statement made by the pro-IM crowd some 100 years ago that sums up the real reason for dissent- "Our heavenly father estimates men according to the state of their affections and passions not according to the state of their understandings or the amount of their knowledge."
Almost all the comments on this post are based in a belief that all you need is to truly "feel" love and be "passionate" about your beliefs and you are truly godly.
The anti-IM crowd 100 years ago countered with- 'A servant may know his masters will without doing it but he cannot do his master's will without knowing it.'
Too many today want to "Just Do It" without knowing what "it" is or how to "do". Or, even believe "it" can be defined or that "do" has guidelines.
IMO: AW
Bob thanks for returning with some excellent comments. The Pepperdine prof was likely Ron Highfield. He wrote an article in Restoration Quarterly a while back about the "Openness of God" question. The whole issue is exceedingly complex and I have not made up my mind about it. From what I have read (Gregory Boyd, Terrance Fretheim and Clark Pinnock) I have not seen a denial of the cross. Rather I have seen serious wrestling with the cross. Be that as it may I think both sides have cogent arguments to consider.
I was not meaning to imply that you were not aware of shades of PM. I was simply pointing out that McGuiggan's statement seems like a sweeping generalization and falls flat when confronted with the facts. G. E. Ladd is a very articulate holder of the classical PM view.
In the RM there were, in the 19th century, more PM than Postmillennialists ... and there were NO Amillennialists. Indeed Both Stone and Campbell condemned the Amillennial position as unbelief. Barton Stone, James Challen, Moses Lard, J.T. Barclay, James A. Harding were all premillennialists. Alexander Campbell and a few others were Post Millennialists. It was simply not an issue.
I think we need to be gracious to each other in these matters and allow each person to study, make conclusions and don't make a creed.
Alan,
You are right. There are things is Scripture that are hard to understand. I wrote about this on this blog not long ago and that is one reason I have begun my "Text & Context" series. This is also why in the historic Stone-Campbell Movement there was a distinction made between "the faith" and the doctrine that a Christian learned and grew into.
Mike,
Glad you chimed in. Loving is never truly easy. We usually love when it serves our own interests. Jesus' example is that of loving when it did NOT serve his best interest ... unless we think the cross served his own interest. Now how we accomplish something like that is a good question. Perhaps it is when we are truly baptized rather than getting dunked. A dying to self and a rising to the new creation is perhaps what is called for. I have not made it to that point yet.
Lisa,
I think those are actually good questions. As to how and why IM has become an issue is a long complicated story. Today it has become an identity marker.
I suppose that some folks want to introduce IM because of the very motives you have listed. Wanting to reach the lost, a becoming all things to all people mentality. I personally do not think a cappella music is a barrier to evangelism but some folks seem to think so.
Great comments brothers and sisters. I was not expecting all of these.
Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Bobby,I should have made it a little clearer that Jim was speaking and interacting with dispensationalists and not all premillennialists. His book was mainly addressed to them because they are the most prominent. It would be interesting to have him interact with the other shades as well. Jim is very much an amillennialist (his book on Revelation takes that position). Admittedly I am rather ignorant about the millennial question in our fellowship before my time. One of these days I may spend some time educating myself.
It was Highfield's article (actually four in total) that I read. I have also read Robert Kurka from Lincoln Christian College plus some from Christianity Today. There is no outright denial of the cross in the "openness of God" group only that their critics think their doctrine will ultimately imply such.
All this shows that we will be debating these issues until Jesus comes back again. Actually I'm kind of hoping that whatever the end looks like we will have lots of opportunity to continue to discuss these issues even though we are in eternity.
Good Post.
Seems we are thinking along similar lines here Bobby.
Or should I say we are thinking along similar lines with this brother of 1968.
Will we ever really learn this though?
thanks Bob,
to some extent I was 'just' being silly. I was not supporting pre-mill views. I have heard and thought also that the doctrine seems to at least slap the church in the face, but you won't hear that from any one who holds that view.
the view may hold that logical conclusion, but the people who hold it don't realize it.
and I bet they could point out some logical conclusions about what we believe that we would reject.
I love mcguiggan, one of my favs, I would like to read that someday.
loving God can't include anything that denies his glory or is insulting to Him. some doctrines (which is not a dirty word for me) do exactly that.
correct me if I am wrong, scholars, but doesn't doctrine mean "teaching"
I beleieve doctrine is very important, whether the doctrine of love or the doctrine of ecclesiology.
the "doctrine" has become a perjorative lable (how's that for fancy talk) that can be tossed at anything we want to dismiss.
we need clearer terms.
Brian's right about doctrine. Look at Titus 2, and you'll find "sound doctrine" spelled out.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Brian, I knew you were being a little silly in your comment. I like that quality in you and look forward to seeing you face to face to enjoy it in person. My comment was a little tongue-in-cheek as well. You are right that many don't know the implications of their beliefs. I'm not always sure how to deal with them but I'm sure God already has that taken care of so I will try to leave it in his hands.
It has always bothered me that we have created this "doctrine" category where we put the most important teachings because it makes it sound ominous when we say someone teaches "false doctrine." However, we should never stop trying to identify which teachings are the most important. I believe that those teachings are usually identified as such in Scripture.
Bobby, thanks for the reminder.
Post a Comment