Tagged: doctrine Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • TFRStaff 2:19 pm on 2017-03-13 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: doctrine, ,   

    Hugh’s News & Views (Fence Straddlers) 

    FENCE STRADDLERS

    The story is told of a civil war soldier who did not want to take sides but remain neutral and be accepted by both sides. He put on a pair of Confederate britches and donned a Union jacket. He was shot in the seat by a Yankee soldier and in the chest by a Rebel soldier and died of the injuries he incurred as a result of trying to be on both sides! (More …)

     
  • J. Randal Matheny 8:35 am on 2016-12-31 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: doctrine   

    Evolving doctrine 

    Just a day or two ago I read an article in which the brother mentioned the use of Darwin’s idea of evolution to talk about doctrine. People say their understanding has evolved after prayer and study. I cannot now find this article. I’d very much like to reference it. Can anybody help me? (I thought sure it was Hugh Fulford’s News and Views, but have not found it there.)

     
  • Eugene Adkins 7:52 am on 2016-12-25 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , doctrine,   

    Born again without the virgin birth? 

    A well-known “mega-church pastor” has supposedly ignited some controversy over his comments concerning the birth of Jesus. I haven’t listened to the sermon, but it seems as if the sum of the matter would be that the “pastor” doesn’t mind if an unbelieving person doubts the virgin-birth of Jesus as long as they believe in his death and resurrection.

    I could say a lot about this gnat and camel situation, but I believe I will sum up my thoughts like this: 1) If an individual can believe that someone left this world by “walking” out of a tomb after being three-days-dead then how does his entrance into this world become the unbelievable stumbling block, and 2) If an individual refuses to acknowledge, through faith, God’s work in the birth of Jesus then how can that individual’s faith acknowledge God’s work when it comes to being born-again?

    All in all, I can appreciate one’s interest in presenting Jesus to a lost world, but I can’t appreciate one’s interest in dismissing what those shepherds found so long ago.

    So it was, when the angels had gone away from them into heaven, that the shepherds said to one another, “Let us now go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has come to pass, which the Lord has made known to us.” And they came with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the Babe lying in a manger. Now when they had seen Him, they made widely known the saying which was told them concerning this Child. And all those who heard it marveled at those things which were told them by the shepherds.” (Luke 2:15-18)

     
  • TFRStaff 6:23 am on 2016-11-01 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: doctrine, , ,   

    Hugh Fulford (“I’d Give A Pretty”) 

    “I’D GIVE A PRETTY . . .”

    One of the fond memories of my childhood is spending several days each summer with each set of my grandparents. All of my grandparents lived within thirty miles of our home and we spent much time together, not only in the summer, but throughout the year during holidays, birthdays, anniversaries, as well as at other times. (More …)

     
    • James McFerrin 9:00 pm on 2016-11-01 Permalink | Reply

      Yeah, I’d give a pretty too. That was one of my dad’s expressions too. I had not thought of that in many years.

  • TFRStaff 5:53 am on 2016-10-04 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: doctrine, , issues   

    Hugh’s News & Views (Squeaky Wheel) 

    THE SQUEAKY WHEEL GETS THE GREASE

    Over the years since I started sending out these weekly essays, I have addressed a wide variety of matters, but some subjects get more attention than others. Brotherhood journals likewise address a wide range of subjects, but some subjects are addressed more frequently than others. In their annual Bible lectureships, Christian universities that have remained true to the purpose of their founders, Bible Institutes, and Schools of Preaching will be careful to address the entire gamut of Bible teaching, but some items will get more attention than others. Local churches in their teaching and preaching programs, in their gospel meetings, and in other special events will address some subjects more often than others. In all of these various venues, why do some subjects receive more attention than others?” Perhaps the following little ditty will explain why. (More …)

     
  • Eugene Adkins 6:09 am on 2016-05-23 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , doctrine,   

    The yeast makes a difference in the bread 

    Doctrine isn’t that big of a deal…so says the school of thought from which some of our “tribe-less” brothers and sisters have graduated.

    The whole idea (or should I say bleached out doctrine?) isn’t new, but that doesn’t mean it’s any less wrong.

    When someone says that doctrine is an antiquated and useless topic, they just don’t know what they’re talking about. They might know what they’re saying, but they don’t know what they’re talking about.

    Jesus once told his disciples to, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” (Matthew 16:6)

    Now, what kind of bread producing substance was Jesus talking about? It was the spiritual kind: “Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” (Matthew 16:12) It’s along the same spiritual idea (only in a positive sense) that Paul had in mind when he told Timothy, “If you instruct the brethren in these things, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished in the words of faith and of the good doctrine which you have carefully followed.” (1 Timothy 4:6)

    You see, the yeast truly makes a difference in the bread that we spiritually eat; so don’t get sandwiched in the thought that says doctrine is a dirty word.

     
    • John Henson 1:54 pm on 2016-05-26 Permalink | Reply

      What is there beyond the teaching of the Bible? The only thing I can think of is humanism — the exaltation of the human mind and imagination. Humanism, or making man the measure, will never teach anyone to become a better person, learn how to treat others, or anything else. Except, it might be enough to teach someone how to build a bird feeder.

  • Eugene Adkins 6:49 am on 2015-12-09 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: doctrine, , ,   

    If you don’t want to hear it, then I don’t want to hear it from you 

    If you don’t want to hear what the apostle Paul taught when it comes to the consequence of sins such as homosexuality and fornication, then I don’t want to hear you talking about what he said when it comes to God’s forgiveness of sin (1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:3-7).

    If you don’t want to hear what the apostle Paul taught when it comes to women and their role in public worship, then I don’t want to hear you talking about what he said when it comes to the role of pastors and deacons (1 Corinthians 14:34-37, 1 Timothy 3:1-13, Titus 1:5-9).

    If you don’t want to hear what the apostle Paul taught when it comes to baptism and salvation, then I don’t want to hear you talking about what he said when it comes to salvation and our confession (Romans 6:1-5, Romans 10:8-10). (More …)

     
  • Ron Thomas 8:53 pm on 2015-08-28 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , doctrine, , under foot   

    God’s Will under One’s Foot 

    The devout gentile, Cornelius, in the time during the first century was most fortunate to have an angel come to him (Acts 10:1-8). The angel gave him no words from God wherein at that moment he was saved, but he was told by the angel to send for one apostle, Peter, that belonged to God. From Peter he would hears words that must be heard and obeyed. Did Cornelius know what he was going to hear? Not exactly, but he knew that from God’s servant he was going to hear something, and we can be sure that Cornelius expected to hear something relative to spirituality. Dutifully and full of excitement Cornelius sent messengers to call for Peter. Peter comes to the house of Cornelius, teaching the truth of God. Cornelius obeyed the message he heard, becoming a Christian.

    Later, in Jerusalem, Peter explained himself when called upon by others to do so (Acts 11:1-18).

    There are some points we do not want to lose sight of in these two chapters of Acts (chapters 10 and 11). First, Cornelius was called upon by God (through an angel) to hear words that would come from Peter (Acts 10:6). Second, when Peter explained this situation to those who questioned him, he made clear that the words spoken were the words of eternal life (Acts 11:14). Third, as Peter spoke to those who assembled together to hear him, the Holy Spirit came down upon “all who heard the word” (10:44). This point of the Holy Spirit coming down on them was to confirm in the mind of Peter (others) that God accepted more than just the people of Jewish heritage (11:17). In 11:19, one can see how this new way of thinking was an initial struggle for those who came out of Judaism. Fourth, that which Paul taught the Philippians jailor (Acts 16:31-33) was the exact same as that which Peter taught Cornelius (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:17; 15:11). Thus, fifth, though the Holy Spirit came upon Cornelius and those who heard the word, they were not saved until they had believed and were baptized (10:48). Peter called this “repentance to life” (11:18).

    Objection considered. Someone might reply that Cornelius had to be saved before baptism because in Acts 11:17, the gift was received because they believed in the Lord. This means they were saved before baptism. First, look at the verse again. Peter referred to himself and those of Jewish heritage in receiving this gift from God (Acts 2:1-4). Second, with this recognition that Cornelius did indeed believe on the Lord, because the Almighty included baptism and repentance in His plan of salvation (John 3:3-5; Acts 2:38), to relegate baptism as unnecessary to salvation is to take God’s will and put it under one’s foot because of doctrinal ideology, not biblical teaching. Third, Peter knew that baptism in the name of the Lord was “with a view to” the remission (forgiveness) of sins (Acts 2:38), since he taught it by inspiration and the authority of the Holy Spirit. There is no biblical reason, there is no emotional reason and there is no logical reason for him to say (or accept) but that their salvation was contingent upon them submitting to the death of the old life and the resurrection of the new in the watery grave of baptism.

    Therefore, the purpose of Holy Spirit’s outpouring in Acts 10 was not toward salvation, but with a view toward confirmation (cf. Hebrews 2:1-4). RT

     

     
  • TFRStaff 4:42 am on 2014-09-30 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , doctrine, ,   

    Hugh's News & Views (Descent Of Modernists) 

    THE DESCENT OF THE MODERNISTS

    Ed Bragwell and I were fellow students at Freed-Hardeman College back in the mid-1950s. Ed has preached the gospel for all or parts of at least seven decades (as have I), and only in fairly recent months has he retired from full-time ministry. He continues to edit a publication, “The Reflector,” and is kind enough to send me a digitized copy of it each month.

    Ed is a good writer, and while he and I disagree on a few matters, I appreciate his commitment to the divine inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, the great fundamentals of “the faith once for all delivered to the saints,” and the undenominational church set forth on the pages of the New Testament. (More …)

     
    • Loy Pressley 5:23 am on 2014-09-30 Permalink | Reply

      Thank you, Brother, for always speaking the truth in love.

    • Jack 11:06 am on 2014-09-30 Permalink | Reply

      Well stated list of those who reject the faith. My experience of the falling away:

      1 Not knowing the GOD who is_ HE does not meet their expectations.
      2 That was then_ and not now.

    • Janice Horne 10:14 pm on 2014-10-02 Permalink | Reply

      Brother Hugh, can I subscribe to “Hugh’s Views and News” by email? janice@jadebooks.com Thanks! –Janice Horne, Bethlehem in Lebanon, TN

  • Eugene Adkins 7:14 am on 2014-06-19 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , doctrine, ,   

    If the Holy Spirit isn’t a person then how… 

    If the Holy Spirit isn’t a person (as some in the religious world contend) then how can you blaspheme him? Sure, the sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit can bring up several questions, but one question that it sure seems to put to bed is whether the Spirit is a person or a “force” that accomplishes the will of God.

    Keep that in mind the next time someone knocks on the door to talk to you about the Bible and God’s kingdom…I mean the New World Translation and the kingdom hall.

    Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.” (Matthew 12:31-32)

     
    • Randal 7:16 am on 2014-06-19 Permalink | Reply

      Good point. That knocks that bad idea in the head, down with a single blow.

      • Eugene Adkins 7:20 am on 2014-06-19 Permalink | Reply

        I came up with it while putting together some notes for an upcoming Sunday School series on the Spirit. Another teaching that it knocks out is whether or not Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the same person. The sin itself shows that there is a difference between them as far as “person-hood” is concerned when it comes to those who hold to the “oneness” doctrine.

        Thanks for the amen.

  • TFRStaff 6:37 am on 2014-06-13 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , doctrine, , Involvement, , , , preaching Christ, , , ,   

    June 2014 Issue of Christian Worker 

    Here’s a link to the latest PDF issue of the Christian Worker.

    Here are the topics that you will find:

    • The New Testament’s “Pattern of Worship” (Dave Rogers)
    • Social Drinking (Sam Willcut)
    • Do Not Quit Writing (Tommy Kelton)
    • The Doctrine of Christ (William Woodson)
    • Tradition or Truth? (Michael Light)
    • Much Wine? (Tracy Dugger)
    • Can Worship Be Vibrant and Meaningful without Becoming Faddish and Unscriptural? (Tom Holland)
    • What Does It Mean to Preach Christ? (Billy Bland)
    • The Drag of Discouragement (Bill Burk)
    • Involvement (Bobby Liddell)

    Christian Worker is an edification effort of the Southwest church of Christ in Austin, Texas.

    You can subscribe to the email version of the Christian Worker paper by clicking on the publications link on their website and then following the given instructions…or by clicking on the link provided here in The Fellowship Room under the “Friends” category to your right.

    Copyright © 2014 Southwest church of Christ, All rights reserved.

     
  • TFRStaff 6:37 am on 2014-04-30 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , doctrine, , , , , ,   

    April 2014 Issue of Christian Worker 

    Here’s a link to the latest PDF issue of the Christian Worker.

    Here are the topics that you will find:

    • What Church Membership Means (Don Prather)
    • Why I’m Rearing My children WITH Religion (Sam Willcut)
    • Some Do’s and Don’ts for Preachers (Carl B. Garner)
    • Young People and the Guarding of Their Influence (Roger Jackson)
    • Raising the Banner of Error (Kevin Cauley)
    • “What is RIGHT with It?” (Pat McIntosh)
    • “I Do Not Preach on That” (Rob L. Whitacre)
    • An Unnecessary Exercise (Dan Winkler)
    • All of Our Divisions (Don Prather)
    • The Parable of the Hammer

    Christian Worker is an edification effort of the Southwest church of Christ in Austin, Texas.

    You can subscribe to the email version of the Christian Worker paper by clicking on the publications link on their website and then following the given instructions…or by clicking on the link provided here in The Fellowship Room under the “Friends” category to your right.

    Copyright © 2014 Southwest church of Christ, All rights reserved.

     
  • Eugene Adkins 6:27 pm on 2014-04-10 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: doctrine, , , ,   

    “Beardless Robertson brother” compares “Duck Dynasty” to Salvation Army and Vice-Versa 

    One of the great things about the Salvation Army and the Robertson family is we’re both trying to help people. Our family has been about reaching out and telling people about the good news about Jesus. And in essence, that’s exactly what the Army does,” said Robertson.”

    The above is a quote from Alan Robertson, according to an article by Kyle Rothenberg published on April 09, 2014 on Fox News’ website, as he spoke to Fox News concerning his speaking engagement at a fund-raising event in Mississippi for the Salvation Army organization.

    What caught my attention in the quote was the word “essence”. It’s interesting how the word “essence” can be used by some to completely slide (if not right out jump) over key doctrinal gaps, assuming that the doctrinal gaps exist between the guest speaker and the leadership of the hosting group. But I guess it would be “wrong” to tell someone you’re trying to raise money for that they’re wrong when it comes to the good news of Jesus and how to receive the benefits thereof.

    Now don’t get me wrong in what I am saying; this is not a “bash the Salvation Army” post. I believe the “Salvation Army” does a lot of good. And I also believe that they are doctrinally sound in many areas of their teaching and understanding of the Bible. But, as far as this post is concerned, one area that I do not agree with them on is how a person must respond to the good news of Jesus in order to be saved. Sure, they believe that one is saved by grace through faith – but according to my understanding they do so to the extent that their version of salvation “by grace through faith” excludes the necessity of baptism when it comes to its role in the regeneration of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5, Acts 2:38). If I’m wrong concerning the Salvation Army’s stance, feel free to correct me. But if I’m correct in my understanding then it is the Salvation Army who stands in need of correction.

    Furthermore, this is not a “bash the Robertson’s” post. I praise the Robertson’s clear and resilient stance against the homosexual agenda and their movement of intolerance, and for their stance on other moral issues and the importance of family in spite of their popularity. They have been given a national platform that few are willing to stand on when it comes to politically incorrect topics. But, as far as this post is concerned, going beyond the forces that seek their caving in to “political correctness”, my concern is that their popularity in the spiritual world will only lead to more and more caving in to a version of “spiritual correctness” that winks at what should not be ignored. Namely, what Jesus himself said when it comes to enjoying the benefits of his good news (Mark 16:15-16).

    The spirit of unity and the unity of the Spirit should not be confused with one another. They are two different things (Ephesians 4:3-6), and they should be recognized as such.

    Now, I believe building bridges is one thing, but helping to support bridges that blatantly teach false doctrines concerning the gospel of Christ and one’s salvation is a road that I wish the Robertson’s, at least to which family members it may apply, would not travel down, for good deeds do not necessarily lead to good results (Matthew 7:21-23), nor does the endorsement of another’s “essence” that resides in error (Romans 16:17). And this is something that I hope they would recognize when a comparison is made.

     
  • TFRStaff 1:48 pm on 2014-01-20 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: doctrine, ,   

    Progressive: a different marketing strategy 

    Progressives have always hung around the church. Keystones of the progressive agenda have been, and continue to be things like: (1) instrumental music in worship; (2) gender neutrality (read: women’s role in the church). Progressives really want one thing: control. And since they don’t have the satisfaction of God’s approval, they desperately crave yours. But they can’t just ask for it, so how do they get it?

    Progressivism is sleight-of-hand. Progressives like to harp about things being archaic and outdated. They propose freedom from the shackles of religious tradition. They know the old saying, “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it,” so they break things, and patent the fix. Watch carefully now, or you’ll miss the trick. Here’s how it works:

    1. Take an authorized biblical practice (a capella music in worship)
    2. Redefine it (label it “archaic tradition”)
    3. Design, package and sell a “better” product (instrumental worship)
    4. Put the icing on the cake: dub this “scholarship” (of course, anyone who disagrees is a dunce, and outdated.

    This little trick will work on any doctrine or practice a person no longer endorses.

    It’s not as if we weren’t warned:

    “These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own sinful desires; they are loud- mouthed boasters, showing favoritism to gain advantage. But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. They said to you, ‘In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.’ It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit” (Jude vv.16-19; cf. Php. 3:18-19)

    —Rick Kelley, Prestonsburg KY church bulletin

     
  • Eugene Adkins 7:19 am on 2014-01-07 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , doctrine, ecuminical movements, , , ,   

    What Must They Do To Be Saved??? 

    In the recent Christian Chronicle paper there was an article titled, “How the should we interact?” which discussed how certain congregations of the churches of Christ were interacting with three other churches outside their fellowship (a Baptist Church, a First Presbyterian Church and Methodist Church).

    Several other issues aside, I want to quickly point out the futility of such work and worship arrangements between “us and them” by using a direct quote in the story.

    On page 19 of the (February 2014, Vol. 71, No.2) story a “pastoral minister” for the Southwest Central Church of Christ said, “None of these [works] requires us to deny who we are or compromise what we believe…In a major urban area like Houston, it is not Churches of Christ against Baptists. It is Christians trying to share Jesus with Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Jews and cultural pagans.

    Did you catch that? Because therein lies the problem. We can’t just simply “share Jesus” along side Baptists, Presbyterians and Methodists. Do you know why? Because we don’t agree, and rightly so, on what those Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Jews and cultural pagans need to do to be saved.

    Do they need to say the sinner’s prayer? Do they need to simply “believe” in Jesus? Do they only need to confess Jesus and then all is well? Or do they need to actually obey the gospel?

    After Phillip “preached Jesus” to the eunuch of Ethiopia the eunuch was left asking “where’s the water?” When such a one asks that of the Baptists, Presbyterians and Methodists in relation to the gospel of Christ they are told “the water is over there, but you don’t need that right now, we’ll take care of that next week, next month or maybe even next year; everything is alright, you’re saved just the way you are.” And even when they do get around to baptizing people it’s not for a scriptural purpose.

    Now I don’t want to sound argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, but I came from the Baptist background. I have family that I love dearly who refer to themselves as Baptists. I have friends that I love dearly who refer to themselves as other denominational names. But my love for them, and even for others that I don’t know, has nothing to do with replacing the unity of the Spirit that Jesus wants for His church with a spirit of unity that does nothing more than ignore the important issues that must be settled, such as the answer to question of “What must I do to be saved?” For if we do not agree on such an answer then how could we possible “share Jesus” with others along with them?

    Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Corinthians 1:10-13)

    Related Article:

     
    • Jon Galloway 10:03 am on 2014-01-07 Permalink | Reply

      Good thoughts. It is more than interesting that we can have no unity with an agreement on baptism – see Ephesians 4:1-6. Because of the wholesale rejection of baptism by those who claim to be Christian, there is no basis for unity. Period.

      • Eugene Adkins 10:32 am on 2014-01-07 Permalink | Reply

        I hear you. I could’ve said more but I wrote that article up in about 10 minutes…it was time to go to work. And I almost used Ephesians 4:4-6 as my scripture text for the end of the article. I had it in mind when I referenced the unity of the Spirit. Thanks for commenting, Jon.

c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
shift + esc
cancel