How much can your church's doctrine be stretched before it is broken? Basically, where is the line that you would draw if your church began to move away from it's historic doctrinal standards, at what point would you seek to attend another church if yours began to change it's beliefs?

Mrs Lovelight: I think your point is well taken. Many today are opposed to doctrinal confessions, but even if you don't agree with a confession 100%, it is a very good tool that gives consistency in doctrine for a church. I am in favor of doctrinal confessions. I think every church and denomination should have one. Not only that, it should be TAUGHT to its members as a requirement for membership.

Aggie4Life,

Absolutely, it is a requirement of my church to go through a membership class that covers the doctrinal standards of the PCA. But even with this, you still see the occassional person who comes in and questions infant baptism, for example. They can still join but w/the understanding that the PCA practices infant baptism and isn't going to change that particular practice. We also require the leadership to hold to the same doctrinal standards as a prerequisite to holding an office.

Mrs. Lovelight: As a member of the PCA, what are your thoughts on this?

My wife and I are looking for a church. I am personally a Reformed Baptist. She is Methodist UMC. We are looking at PCA because she comes from a infant baptism tradition, and because PCA is almost identical to Reformed Baptist (infant vs creed baptism is only difference). If the baptism issue is the only one I take issue with in the Westminster Confession, would they allow me to teach sunday school or become a deacon or elder?

I think that would be up to the current leadership in the church. I believe that some churches allow the elders/deacons to take a "scruple" (I think thats the term) to certain parts of the WCOF but I don't know which doctrines are considered the cutoff for such. I will say in the past we had elders who came from Baptist background that we allowed as elders. They were very godly men who had really prayed about and were still not convinced of infant baptism. They were confirmed as elders but I don't if there were any conditions attached to that or not. I would think that they would have to agree not to teach against infant baptism or whatever doctrine they happened to disagree with.

As to the teaching position I don't know, I would say approach the leadership in the church and discuss this w/them.

"How much can your church's doctrine be stretched before it is broken?"

How much can the Bible be stretched to fit your church's doctrine before it is broken?

Like infant baptism...

I would think matters of doctrine would be fairly concrete. It is the matters of theology where the differences of opinion begin to arise.

Sadly, the times they are changing, especially in Reformed circles:

http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/bh/bh177.htm

quote:

---

I would think matters of doctrine would be fairly concrete. It is the matters of theology where the differences of opinion begin to arise.

---

Just curious, but what is your understanding of the term doctrine and the term theology? I could be wrong here, but I think all theology is part of doctrine in some for or another.

I would think that your doctrine would be based on your theology. So if your theology changes wouldn't that effect your doctrine? It would be like building a foundation on shifting sands.

quote:

---

"How much can your church's doctrine be stretched before it is broken?"

How much can the Bible be stretched to fit your church's doctrine before it is broken?

Like infant baptism...

---

--or the elimination of instruments in worship.

Seriously, I say that because some posts indicate that they don't take your question very seriously, I would find it easier to commment if you would....say....pick a certain doctrine and then ask how far one can go astray before we hit heresy.

Your initial question is a good one. Dr. M. and I discuss it frequently.

Just the opposite, theology is built on doctrine. Chirst is God incarnate in the flesh, born of Mary, we are saved by grace, etc. Theology is the stuff different denominations build up around doctrine.

The historical doctrine from the Bible has never changed, the theological interpretations have. It is through the lens of theology that many people see their doctrine.

Then I think we are just discussing equivocations on the words.

Formally speaking Doctrine = Teaching and Theology = The study of God.

quote:

---

How much can the Bible be stretched to fit your church's doctrine before it is broken?

---

Oooh -- ouch!

quote:

---

Oooh -- ouch!

---

???

quote:

---

Just the opposite, theology is built on doctrine. Chirst is God incarnate in the flesh, born of Mary, we are saved by grace, etc. Theology is the stuff different denominations build up around doctrine.

The historical doctrine from the Bible has never changed, the theological interpretations have. It is through the lens of theology that many people see their doctrine.

---

I don't quite understand the distinction being made here.

My key questions for a church are Do I find forgiveness, spirituality, understanding/acceptance , and welcoming of debate i.e. respect for other ways of seeing things (both ways)?

quote:

---

My key questions for a church are Do I find forgiveness, spirituality, understanding/acceptance , and welcoming of debate i.e. respect for other ways of seeing things (both ways)?

---

Aren't you Muslim?

quote:

---

I would find it easier to commment if you would....say....pick a certain doctrine and then ask how far one can go astray before we hit heresy.

---

Okay, let's take the doctrine of salvation. Let's say your church has taught you are saved by grace apart from works. Then you get a new pastor and he comes in and still teaches that you are saved by grace however, he also adds that your salvation is an ongoing process rather than a one time declaration. And that process involves participation in the church, such as baptism, communion, fellowship and tithing. He also puts such an emphasis on these activities as to align them w/the process of salvation rather than just a sign of salvation.

Let's go further and say there are people in the church who begin to question this and ask questions about this teaching. Then, the new pastor explains that his teaching is based in historical christian tradition and shows you scriptures to back up this claim. He also goes on to tell you that the way you have been interpreting these passages of scripture is erroneous and you need him to tell you what they mean so you can truly understand his teaching.

Is this something you would take issue with? When things happen very slowly and subtly, at what point does the doctrine become broken?

I think when definitions change and become something else for example, when "regeneration" becomes equal to "sanctification", or when two distinct definitions are morphed into one.

[This message has been edited by Mrs. Lovelight (edited 12/6/2005 2:37p).]

Another question I have is, is it necessary to narrow down our definitions so much that it leaves little room for any kind of leeway, or should room be left to give some freedom of conscience?

I think the true way is going to be somewhere in the middle but I have trouble in knowing where to draw the line...

Lone, let me use some examples.

Chirstendom affirms that believers should be baptized. This is a matter of doctrine. Different theologies teach different things, paedo v. credo.
Doctrine of confessing sins is held. The theology of confessing to God directly or through a priest varies.
The doctrine is to celebrate the Lord's Supper. Different theological views hold the meaning of this to be different whether transubstantiation, consubstantiation, or a simple memorial.

quote:

---

Okay, let's take the doctrine of salvation. Let's say your church has taught you are saved by grace apart from works. Then you get a new pastor and he comes in and still teaches that you are saved by grace however, he also adds that your salvation is an ongoing process rather than a one time declaration. And that process involves participation in the church, such as baptism, communion, fellowship and tithing. He also puts such an emphasis on these activities as to align them w/the process of salvation rather than just a sign of salvation.

Let's go further and say there are people in the church who begin to question this and ask questions about this teaching. Then, the new pastor explains that his teaching is based in historical christian tradition and shows you scriptures to back up this claim. He also goes on to tell you that the way you have been interpreting these passages of scripture is erroneous and you need him to tell you what they mean so you can truly understand his teaching.

Is this something you would take issue with? When things happen very slowly and subtly, at what point does the doctrine become broken?

I think when definitions change and become something else for example, when "regeneration" becomes equal to "sanctification", or when two distinct definitions are morphed into one.

---

I actually had an experience similar to the one you are describing. I simply began arguing from the very beginning. There were many places: Sunday School, church leadership meetings, planning meetings, personal conferences. I argued the entire time. When it got to the point that I thought that belief in the "off-balance doctrine" would actually be harmful to the Christian walk, I began to sever ties. But, I didn't leave the church until I felt God's leading. I fel that He led me to the church in the first place, so I felt like I had to have a "release" from to leave. It finally came, and today that church, at least in my opinion, has some dangerous beliefs.

quote:

---

How much can the Bible be stretched to fit your church's doctrine before it is broken?

Like infant baptism...

---

Matthew 18:3: and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven...

The Church is empowered by Jesus to make the rules. Nowhere in the Church's book known as the Bible does it imply a minimum age for Baptism.

The NT does change the entrance requirement into the faith from circumcision to baptism, and we all know that OT Jewish children entered into the faith by circumcision on only their 8th day of life. In the NT, the entry rite of Baptism into Christianity now corresponds to the OT entry rite of circumcision into Judaism, which is now unnecessary, except for health reasons.

quote:

---

Matthew 18:3: and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven...

The Church is empowered by Jesus to make the rules. Nowhere in the Church's book known as the Bible does it imply a minimum age for Baptism.

The NT does change the entrance requirement into the faith from circumcision to baptism, and we all know that OT Jewish children entered into the faith by circumcision on only their 8th day of life. In the NT, the entry rite of Baptism into Christianity now corresponds to the OT entry rite of circumcision into Judaism, which is now unnecessary, except for health reasons.

---

Reread this post and then tell me that you have made an argument for unbeliever, infant baptism. It is teeming with clear scripture.

Aggie4Life02 asked "Aren't you Muslim?"

I could have been Jewish.

But it comes from Herman Melville. Some story about a whale (or was it really God/fate/etc.?)

I did reread it, and I could find no minimum age for entry into the Church. I entered as an infant, as did my wife and two kids....Seems to have taken just fine...

I knew the Catholic church used both the Bible and Church tradition to establish doctrine. I didn't know they used personal, anecdotal experience.

quote:

---

I entered as an infant

---

I thought Catholics were not official members of the church until after confirmation?

Lone,

come on now, history shows us both, and without historical debate instruments were not a part of the early Christian's worship in Practice and doctrine, and the same goes for infant baptism.

We have debated if it is indeed acceptable wortship, but there is no debate that it was not used in the beginning.

See, 73 just stretched the meaning of:
Matthew 18:3 to fit his doctrine...

"Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven..."

Paedobaptism has nothing to do with this verse but yet is is quoted as if it did. Why? to fit a doctrine.

Is this following mistake one of theology or doctrine?

"The Church is empowered by Jesus to make the rules."

[This message has been edited by AgGermany (edited 12/7/2005 8:37a).]

quote:

---

Paedobaptism has nothing to do with this verse but yet is is quoted as if it did. Why? to fit a doctrine.

---

Kinda like this one?

quote:

---

John 3:5
Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

---

Mrs. Lovelight, I apologize. I derailed the original content of this thread. Others, please ignore my "rabbit trails" and go back to the original idea, which I think is important for discussion.

Lone-You are then implying that my baptism is not valid?

Please explain...Would I have to be rebaptized should I convert to your denomination?

Believers are baptized. If when you were an infant, you were a believer, then that is a baptism. If not, then you were simply dedicated to grow up in the Christian faith.

I tried to tell Mrs L. that I didn't want to go down this trail. If you want to discuss it, first do a search, it's been done many times. If that doesn't do it for you, then start a thread on this issue.

Lone,

Don't worry about the derail. If it's beneficial to some to make this thread about infant baptism, so be it.

John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb....

I would only add that people of faith are baptized, and Jesus said that little children have the type of faith that gets one into heaven. Standing in the gap for my infant kids during their baptism is something I was proud to do.