What is pursuing Sound Doctrine?

[ageofknowledge]

Given the over 38,000 Christian denominations and many Christian cults, in your own words, how would you explain what sound doctrine is? How would you recommend they pursue sound doctrine?

[Jac3510]

Regardless of how many people get doctrine wrong, what it IS is a rather simple question: it is what God says is true.

How we should pursue that is also easy. Look to the Bible. Sola Scriptura. If the Bible says it, it's true. If it contradicts the Bible, it's false, no matter who or what says it.

How do you know what the Bible says/means? Again, simple. Read it in context. Don't read your own meaning into it. Take it literally. Don't spiritualize it. In other words, apply the exact same method of interpretation to it that you would any other piece of human communication. Try to spiritualize your mortgage contract so that you don't have to pay your bank actual dollar signs and see how long a court listens to your argument.

Beyond that, you may need help from those who have had some formal training when it comes to original languages and ancient culture and customs. That's what makes study fun. It's a life long process of learning. But don't let teh 38000 different denominations bother you. Just because most people think their opinions are more important than Scripture doesn't mean that you can't know what Scripture actually says.

[ageofknowledge]

Sola Scriptura narrows the field somewhat as many cults do not rest solely on scripture but we're not there yet. Paul told Timothy to not only watch his life, but his doctrine closely to save lives (1 Tim. 4:16). But I think that we need to qualify sound doctrine further. Soundness simply means truth. The problem is that there's essential and non-essential truth. Denominations disagree on the latter, not the former. The cults and other religions disagree on the former. What is proper essential doctrine is that which accords with what the apostles taught concerning eternal life (cf. Jn. 17:3). So how do we define it futher. Could we say sola scripture accords with the teaching of the apostles to narrow it further?

[Jac3510]

When Paul said to follow sound doctrine, he meant that which comes from Scripture. ALL of it. Some errors have small negative consequences. These are errors relating to non-essential truth. Other errors have massive negative consequences. Those are errors relating to essential truth.

We should not minimize any portion of God's Word by implying that one piece is allowed to be mishandled while another is not. If you mishandle any Scripture whatsoever you do yourself and others harm. The question is how much harm is done, and what is the nature of the harm caused? Some things are severe enough to break fellowship over (i.e., a false gospel). Others are mild enough that the pain caused by schism is not warranted by the pain caused by the error (i.e., misuse of tongues).

But in all of these cases, sound doctrine is plainly that which is taught in Scripture and in Scripture alone. Sola Scriptura does not narrow the field. It defines it.

[ageofknowledge]

When Paul said to follow sound doctrine, he meant that which comes from Scripture. ALL of it. Some errors have small negative consequences. These are errors relating to non-essential truth. Other errors have massive negative consequences. Those are errors relating to essential truth.

We should not minimize any portion of God's Word by implying that one piece is allowed to be mishandled while another is not. If you mishandle any Scripture whatsoever you do yourself and others harm. The question is how much harm is done, and what is the nature of the harm caused? Some things are severe enough to break fellowship over (i.e., a false gospel). Others are mild enough that the pain caused by schism is not warranted by the pain caused by the error (i.e., misuse of tongues).

But in all of these cases, sound doctrine is plainly that which is taught in Scripture and in Scripture alone. Sola Scriptura does not narrow the field. It defines it.

Yes good reply. Anyone else?

[waynepii]

We should not minimize any portion of God's Word by implying that one piece is allowed to be mishandled while another is not.

How does this relate some of the ''outdated" sections in the OT?

Honestly, I'm just trying to understand.

[Jac3510]

There are no outdated portions of Scripture. The Mosaic Law, which I assume you are referring to, was for a specific nation (pre-Cross Israel). It never included anyone not a member of that nation. The purpose of that Law was to train Israel in righteousness so that when Righteousness came, they would see it (further, it set the legal grounds on which God's Messiah--Jesus--could not only atone for sin, but also serve as Prophet, Priest, and King forever).

Now that the Messiah has come, the Law has completed its purpose.

In any case, Gentiles were never and never will be under it. We can look at it and learn alot about the God whom we serve. We can look at it and learn alot about God's plan for the world. So it is in no sense outdated. The best "one-liner" I can give you on the Bible is this:

"The Bible was written FOR you, not TO you." Keep that in mind, and you will be able to see the value in all those "outdated" portions. And if you want to understand fully the relationship between the Law and the Promise, study Galatians. Paul explains it there.

[waynepii]

There are no outdated portions of Scripture. The Mosaic Law, which I assume you are referring to, was for a specific nation (pre-Cross Israel). It never included anyone not a member of that nation. The purpose of that Law was to train Israel in righteousness so that when Righteousness came, they would see it (further, it set the legal grounds on which God's Messiah--Jesus--could not only atone for sin, but also serve as Prophet, Priest, and King forever).

OK - thanks.

Did God have any relationship or plan wrt the non-Israelites during the pre-cross era? I assume the non-Israelites were descendants of Noah, but (presumably) branched off from the proto-Israelites somewhere between Noah and Moses? Or did the flood leave at least some other cultures extant? If that was the case, wouldn't the surviving cultures "gods" have been "reinforced" relative to the God of Israel? ("see, [whomever they worshiped] protected you from the flood which the God of Israel could not do").

Now that the Messiah has come, the Law has completed its purpose.

In any case, Gentiles were never and never will be under it. We can look at it and learn alot about the God whom we serve. We can look at it and learn alot about God's plan for the world. So it is in no sense outdated.

I know the OT mentions that it (the law of Moses) applies to Israelites in numerous places - does it state that Gentiles are exempt (ie that it applies only to Isaelites, or is that implied or inferred somehow?

The best "one-liner" I can give you on the Bible is this:

"The Bible was written FOR you, not TO you." Keep that in mind, and you will be able to see the value in all those "outdated" portions. And if you want to understand fully the relationship between the Law and the Promise, study Galatians. Paul explains it there.

Thanks, I'll take a look.

[Jac3510]

Did God have any relationship or plan wrt the non-Israelites during the pre-cross era? I assume the non-Israelites were descendants of Noah, but (presumably) branched off from the proto-Israelites somewhere between Noah and Moses? Or did the flood leave at least some other cultures extant? If that was the case, wouldn't the surviving cultures "gods" have been "reinforced" relative to the God of Israel? ("see, [whomever they worshiped] protected you from the flood which the God of Israel could not do").

I know the OT mentions that it (the law of Moses) applies to Israelites in numerous places - does it state that Gentiles are exempt (ie that it applies only to Isaelites, or is that implied or inferred somehow?

You are correct that all nations descended from Noah. The Israelites came from the line of Shem (from which we get the word Semitic) down to Abraham, then Isaac, then Jacob (his name was changed to Israel) and his twelve sons (from whom we get the names of the twelve tribes of Israel). So, you can see that YHWH is the only God who could be said to save from the Flood, because everyone except Noah and his family died.

Concerning God's relationship with non-Israelites (aka, Gentiles), yes, He had one. It just was not as defined as Israel's. Israel was a theocracy. In Gen 12:1-3, God promises Abraham that He is going to make his children into a great nation. That promise is called the Abrahamic Covenant and forms the basis for the whole of biblical theology (both Old and New Testament). Abraham's son Isaac (rather than Ishmael) received the same promise. Isaac's son Jacob (rather than Esau) then received the promise. Finally, all twelve of the sons of Jacob received the promise, so that the nation of Israel proper is anyone decendant from any of the twelve tribes.

The Abrahamic Covenant, though, is more than just God creating a nation for Abraham. More specifically, God promises in that Covenant to establish His own eternal kingdom on earth forever through them. In this way, "all the families of the earth shall be blessed" (Gen 12:3). In God's grand plan, then, He will relate to all nations when He finally and completely establishes the Kingdom of Israel, which is a very common theme in OT prophecy. That helps better explain the purpose of the Law. It was specifically designed for that people who would receive this nation. Israel had the role of being something like a priest. You see, a priest's job is to represent God to the people and the people to God. He is, in short, a mediator. Israel, then, was supposed to be a model for all the Gentile nations. They should have been able to look to Israel and see what a nation under God's law looked like, and thereby be drawn to the true God. In the end, that will still be their purpose (which, by the way, is the reason that is the Church's purpose today).

God's relationship with gentile nations, then, was one of distance. God still dealt with them (see Jonah and Obediah for two such examples). God takes responsibility for the rise and fall of Babylon, Greece, Persia, etc. Both those nations and the people in them were expected to turn to Israel's God. Obviously, that didn't happen, but that's just part of the ongoing story of God's work in human history.

So, the tl;dr to all this:

1. Israel was supposed to serve as a priest, of sorts, to the rest of the nations. As such, she was under a particular law that the others were not;
2. Other nations were to see Israel's service to Yahweh and turn to Him in submission. Since they were not priests, they were not under the priestly law, but they were still under the universal moral law, which included the worship of the one true God. (I take it you can see the obvious moral implications of worshipping a false God, on the assumption, of course, that the true God can be known.)

[ageofknowledge]

How does this sound for an answer to the question of 'What is pursuing sound doctrine?":

To pursue sound doctrine is to seek to properly understand what God has communicated to humanity. This isn't a trivial issue because the world is filled with competing false claims and contradictory sources. For good reason Paul told Timothy to not only watch his life, but his doctrine as well (1 Tim. 4:16). Christians fortunately understand that when it comes to sound doctrine Sola Scriptura or "scripture alone" does not simply narrow the field: it defines it.

So we see that the simplest explanation for pursuing sound doctrine is not to go beyond the Word of God while seeking to properly understand it. Yet this is not trivial either as evidenced by the many Christian denominations that exist around the world. Authentic Christians have unity on the scriptural essentials but may disagree on scriptural non-essentials. Small non-essential misunderstandings may have small negative consequences. Major essential misunderstandings have massive negative consequences.
It is not suggested that any portion of God's Word should be minimized and it is not implied that one portion is allowed to be mishandled while another is not. If you mishandle any Scripture whatsoever you do yourself and others harm. The question is how much harm is done, and what is the nature of that harm. Mishandling essential truths in scripture, a hallmark of cults, are severe enough to break fellowship over while disagreement on non-essentials is not. John 17:11, for example, reveals Jesus wish that authentic believers be one even as He and God were one. This is called unity, and the authentic body of worldwide believers has it on the essentials.

However, as Romans 14 shows, there are going to be differences on non-essentials examples of which include interpretations as to spiritual gifts, the millenial kingdom, etc... but when churches start to do things contrary to the essentials of which examples include Jesus virgin birth, the Trinity, Jesus' physical ressurection, salvation by grace through faith, etc... then that church has serious issues and can do a lot of damage despite whatever good works they are showing to the world.

To pursue sound doctrine is to follow Paul's advice given in 2 Timothy 2:15 which states, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth."

-posted at Christians Helping Our World

Sound right? Wrong? Why? Why not?