viaro:

Thank you. I'm sure a second look at my comments following noetic16's will show that I considered BOTH sides of this issue:

I don't know if noetic16 saw the point before assuming other things that I wasn't concerned about. Nothing in my post suggests "an oratory tool for crafts men"; nothing there was pointing to "a bunch of theological orators who possibly do not live by the word". . . unless of course he suggests that those are the conclusions he draws from the verses I cited.

True to ur word, u did consider both sides. . . .but never considered the implication of believers learning from teachers who do not practise what they teach. The church needs teacher who will make the scriptures alive by practising the deeds of Jesus Christ themselves.

[size=13pt]I don't think such reactions are necessary or helpful at all. When I read comments like: "of what essence is doctrines to a believer?", I feel very sorry for the one who asks such a question. In all things, I shall leave him to argue with God - the answers he gets may surprise him.
[/size]
Yes, there are very many names I could give you from across the world. The one thing is that I recognize that you guys often narrow issues down to your local environment, and that is why it becomes really difficult to discuss largely and broadly with people who think like that. Just because there are many abuses in Nigeria does not mean that there are no Christian leaders of integrity within Nigeria; nor does it mean that outside Nigeria the corruption is not felt at all. There are quite a few ministers who are truly commendable; but we are not asking for perfectionism here. However, if you have no one that will benefit you at all in the things of God, no worries - others are finding benefit in the ministry of other servants around the world, and we should be humble enough to recognize that.

Absolutely NOT! I can here and now tell you that anybody who dismisses "doctrine" has no value at all to present - and if that is the sort of crowd you want to hang around with, good luck! But don't try to place them at par with the Holy Spirit! What's wrong with you, commander?!?

Is that what you read in my posts? Is that what the verses cited in my posts are saying? Please show me how you derived this from what I have posted.

Noetic16 has his own small reasons blown way beyond his world, so I won't be concerned about him at all.

I feel the need to reply before Viaro misrepresents my views and constructs a wrong case as he "seldom" does  . . .

In my rejoinder to ur previous post . . I did state the following:
4. After a man repents of his deeds, makes restitution for his sins, begins his walk with God, adopts a life of faith and holiness. . . .what knowledge does he need again?
The gap in understanding is the singular basis for the doctrinal inconsistencies found in several churches. where men who claim to be teachers in words only do not act as commanded but also apply personal opinions to God's commandments. An example is the case of the sabbath. . . .many churches worship on saturday, others on sunday.
What has the day of worship got to do with salvation?

So to clarify the issue of Doctrines. [size=18pt]There is NO doctrine outside of salvation and the principal elements attached to it, such as restitution, genuine repentance, love, fellowship with saints, faith and holiness. [/size]
Any other doctrine is a FRAUDULENT product of dubious men set out to deceive the saints of God.

@noetic: Those doctrines you listed are actually invaginated inwardly by some other doctrines.

^^^ could u shed more light?

@noetic:
The Nature and Sovereignty of God is also a fundamental Doctrine.

Ezekiel 12:28 Therefore say to them, "This is what the Sovereign LORD says: None of my words will be delayed any longer; whatever I say will be fulfilled, declares the Sovereign LORD."

Revelation 17:14 They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will overcome them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings -- and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers.

For instance, within the doctrine of God's Holiness is the doctrine of His Sovereignty. He is Sovereign because He is Holy (i.e. unmovable and steadfast except on His own accord). Sovereignty and Holiness of God seem not to be related, but it is embedded in one another.

When you say there is no doctrine outside of salvation, you are approaching the matter from man's own end. Think of it this way: our relationship with God is a two-way thing, a kind of business deal: we gain salvation, but what does He gain from us? Ponder on it, and yet other fundamental doctrines besides those related to salvation, will spring upon you. God bless.

InesQor:

@noetic:
The Nature and Sovereignty of God is also a fundamental Doctrine.

Ezekiel 12:28 Therefore say to them, "This is what the Sovereign LORD says: None of my words will be delayed any longer; whatever I say will be fulfilled, declares the Sovereign LORD."

Revelation 17:14 They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will overcome them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings -- and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers.

For instance, within the doctrine of God's Holiness is the doctrine of His Sovereignty. He is Sovereign because He is Holy (i.e. unmovable and steadfast except on His own accord). Sovereignty and Holiness of God seem not to be related, but it is embedded in one another.

When you say there is no doctrine outside of salvation, you are approaching the matter from man's own end. Think of it this way: our relationship with God is a two-way thing, a kind of business deal: we gain salvation, but what does He gain from us? Ponder on it, and yet other fundamental doctrines besides those related to salvation, will spring upon you. God bless.

I'm tempted to reply to this, but i prefer that a christian take u up on it.

nuclearboy:

Viaro:

Never said you didn't consider both sides. However, I sincerely don't see how even my not specifically saying you saw both should be offensive to you! FYI, I was trying to calm you guys both down. Except you'd like I consider noetic moronic which he definitely isn't.

And I do not know why you are so touchy today, Viaro. You speak as though I live inside some 10 home isolated village and my world is limited to that - Even had I never travelled to or had experience of the western world in my plus 4 decades, the internet shows me the Creflo Dollars of this world. Generalising was wrong (I admit) but I was trying to pass a point across not make a law.

Biblical doctrine is disparate from false teachings. Whist all cannot have my type of initial "bad" experience, I needs must look at the average and fear for the "young". What anyway, is wrong in God dispensing knowledge Himself? At least we know that those the Scripture says He taught personally were "tops" in doctrine. Such would include Moses and Jesus! How many of such do we know to have erred doctrinally?

Again Viaro, and I'm sad saying this (to you of all people never expecting you wouldn't understand), God witness I'm not judging your posts but trying to temper down responses from multiple posters each of whom I have respect for. Being uninvolved emotionally, I try to decipher (based on my own thoughts) what each is trying to say. There's no fighting here, just misunderstood words as Inesqor earlier said.

@nuclearboy,

I saw the above since morning but tried to check myself and other posts to see if and where I was coming off too strongly. That was why I didn't reply noetic16 directly initially, not that I considered him moronic at all.

However, it so happens that the very simple case of making positive contribution in this thread seems to be lost on us all. Yes, we should be concerned about pernicious teaching from false teachers - but hang on: what has happened to the postive teaching? It seems to me that we have spent far too much time complaining about false teaching that the "new converts" we should have been sharing good spiritual food with are left FARMISHED! If I were just coming to fiath and stumbled on this thread, what would I have taken away from it? Someone quips: "of what essence is doctrines to a believer?". . and were i to have been a new convert, it would seem that such a statement is to lead me to believe that doctrine has no essence to the believer - and I was to take that home when you place such as a "teacher" mentioned alongside the Holy Spirit?!?

The point here is not about false doctrines - we can take those to other threads, as InesQor has earlier suggested. But what about good teaching - what happens to that? Some say that the believer does not need a "teacher", and if I were to look at God's Word it makes me wonder then what God must have had in mind when HE gave us TEACHERS! Are we saying tacitly that God was wrong in making such provisions for us? Or, just because there are false teachers, does that in itself mean therefore that one should decry the blessing of having teachers who are sound and available to us today?

@noetic16,

Howdy? Now I can have something to say in direct reply to yours:

noetic16:

True to your word, u did consider both sides. . . .but never considered the implication of believers learning from teachers who do not practise what they teach. The church needs teacher who will make the scriptures alive by practising the deeds of Jesus Christ themselves.

I think you got me wrong there. It is not true that I "never" considered the implication of unhealthy teaching or false teachers - infact, I outlined this very issue in post #62! There, I not only discussed why we have heresies in many places today, but also spoke a couple of times about DISCERNMENT.

noetic16:

I feel the need to reply before Viaro misrepresents my views and constructs a wrong case as he "seldom" does .

You should not feel a need where your words bear testimony to what you had in mind. I did not edit anything about the quote I drew from yours; but to have been so careless about the value of doctrine is quite alarming - I can excuse you on that; but you should not be too hasty to react the way you did earlier to make such unguarded statements.

noetic16:
In my rejoinder to your previous post . . I did state the following:
4. After a man repents of his deeds, makes restitution for his sins, begins his walk with God, adopts a life of faith and holiness. . . .what knowledge does he need again?

I didn't take you up on that initially - and I explained why to nuclearboy. If you assume that after all those things you talked about, then a believer does not need any knowledge afterwards, you are making your reader think you know it all at that stage! That is more than arrogance and very misleading indeed. A few cults were started that way where people think that they have repented and are walking with God and therefore need no other knowledge!

We learn every day or our lives. Any one who feels he has "arrived" and "accomplished" should wear a big 'L' sign on his back! He that thinks he knows when he does not know is acting like a fool - and it does not matter if that person is noetic or viaro (1 Corinthians 3:18).

noetic16:

The gap in understanding is the singular basis for the doctrinal inconsistencies found in several churches. where men who claim to be teachers in words only do not act as commanded but also apply personal opinions to God's commandments. An example is the case of the sabbath. . . .many churches worship on saturday, others on sunday.
What has the day of worship got to do with salvation?

I'm sure you have an informed personal opinion on the Sabbath and such issues around what day(s) to worship. You cannot pretend that to not be concerned about it, unless you are trying to say that you don't even worship God at all - so, whether you choose any specific day or not would be based on your persuasion of what you read in God's Word as a doctrine of the Christian faith and testimony, NO?!?

noetic16:
So to clarify the issue of Doctrines. [size=14pt]There is NO doctrine outside of salvation and the principal elements attached to it, such as restitution, genuine repentance, love, fellowship with saints, faith and holiness. [/size]

Please don't shout - especially when you might be wrong! Hebrews 6:1-2, for example, possibly shows how very wrong you might be! Let's even allow your own argument for the moment, viz: your assumption that these are the things that define your own conclusion -

[list][li]salvation - with "principal elements", such as -[/li]
[li]restitution,[/li]
[li]genuine repentance,[/li]
[li]love,[/li]
[li]fellowship with saints,[/li]
[li]faith[/li]
[li]and holiness[/li][/list]

Nice. I recognise that there could be more - since you listed those as "examples". However, what does Hebrews 6:1-2 say? In one word: MOVE ON FROM THERE to maturity - and as such, there are in fact several other aspects that we should explore as a necessary part of our Christian faith BEYOND just the doctrine of salvation -

[list]"Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of - [/list]

[list][li]repentance from dead works,[/li]
[li]and of faith toward God,[/li]
[li]Of the doctrine of baptisms,[/li]
[li]and of laying on of hands,[/li]
[li]and of resurrection of the dead,[/li]
[li]and of eternal judgment.[/li][/list]

All these things are just the "foundation" - that is not all we should be cemented on. Hebrews 6:1-2 says we should move on from these things unto "perfection"; and it seems clear that the things you mentioned earlier are just "the first principles of the oracles of God" as Hebrews 5:12-14.

So, when you have come to the conclusion that beyond what you assert, there is nothing more - the end result is that you will have nothing else to present. We can only receive if we're open to God - but shouting our own small conclusions as the limit of all that defines Christianity is quit unproductive.

noetic16:
Any other doctrine is a FRAUDULENT product of dubious men set out to deceive the saints of God.

Your opinion. I guess when you go through Scripture and see that you're too narrow in your arguments, then light will dawn on you. Till then, fingers crossed for you, my bro.

^^^ NOW I get your point!

CONFUSION! Thats what I have in me thinking about your post - For I can remember a great deal of good stuff I learnt from pastors on the pulpit. Sincerely a great deal. And that is why I'm confused because your post makes sense for that reason. However, I also can think of quite a number of ridiculous stuff bandied from the same pulpits. A lot of that too. I can see the effect of the good in my life and I also think I see the effect of the bad in other lives especially younger christians. Not that I'm clean but mirrors cause distortion (even if just lateral) - I can't judge myself.

Maybe what worries me is that it gets worse as time goes on but in support of you, my spirit reminds me of Elijah being corrected that God had reserved 7, 000 others. in effect, if I wasn't and haven't been destroyed by the travesty on our pulpits, God is able (after keeping me) to keep His Children.

Maybe that why "the chaff and wheat grow up together". I wholely concur!

Thanks, viaro. I was in a hurry earlier on when I replied noetic, and I was trying to recall that Hebrew 6:1-2 scripture (on the fundamental foundations, how that for a thing to be fundamental, other things are built thereupon) but I just couldn't remember the reference. Cheers.

^^ No problem - the Lord is your Strength and will refresh you.

Nuclearboy
I hope you truthfully and genuinely concur, and you're not just doing the 'prop'. For God's sake, you people should for a day allow this thread it's purpose. We learners are here, those who have finished learning should go and sit down somewhere(pls, not in the gutter), or go and fellowship with HS and JC(God knows who those peep are).

Image,

I wonder what I should say to you that won't be misconstrued. Suffice it then to assert that I am a believer, honest enough to consider the other parties position and humble enough to admit wrong.

I doubt you can say same since its not likely you actually have an opinion yourself. Enjoy your days

InesQor:

@noetic:
The Nature and Sovereignty of God is also a fundamental Doctrine.

Ezekiel 12:28 Therefore say to them, "This is what the Sovereign LORD says: None of my words will be delayed any longer; whatever I say will be fulfilled, declares the Sovereign LORD."

Revelation 17:14 They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will overcome them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings -- and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers.

For instance, within the doctrine of God's Holiness is the doctrine of His Sovereignty. He is Sovereign because He is Holy (i.e. unmovable and steadfast except on His own accord). Sovereignty and Holiness of God seem not to be related, but it is embedded in one another.

When you say there is no doctrine outside of salvation, you are approaching the matter from man's own end. Think of it this way: our relationship with God is a two-way thing, a kind of business deal: we gain salvation, but what does He gain from us? Ponder on it, and yet other fundamental doctrines besides those related to salvation, will spring upon you. God bless.

1. God needs nothing from us.

2. These are end-time doctrines whose interpretations are usually with loads of holes.

viaro:

@noetic16,

Howdy? Now I can have something to say in direct reply to yours:

I am good . , , and u?

I think you got me wrong there. It is not true that I "never" considered the implication of unhealthy teaching or false teachers - infact, I outlined this very issue in post #62! There, I not only discussed why we have heresies in many places today, but also spoke a couple of times about DISCERNMENT.

ok. , . .if u say so.

You should not feel a need where your words bear testimony to what you had in mind. I did not edit anything about the quote I drew from yours; but to have been so careless about the value of doctrine is quite alarming - I can excuse you on that; but you should not be too hasty to react the way you did earlier to make such unguarded statements.

there was nothing careless in what I said . . . it was u who did not comprehend the full point I was making. what do u imply doctrine? is the various division between the many denominations a result of different doctrines? if the body of Christ be the same, why are there so many contradicting doctrines? why should a believer be involved in such divisions? why not get involved in just the principal elements of salvation and subsequently walk with God?

I didn't take you up on that initially - and I explained why to nuclearboy. If you assume that after all those things you talked about, then a believer does not need any knowledge afterwards, you are making your reader think you know it all at that stage! That is more than arrogance and very misleading indeed. A few cults were started that way where people think that they have repented and are walking with God and therefore need no other knowledge!

This is a far cry from the point I raised. There is a whole difference between doctrine and knowledge. knowledge comes from teachings, which are universal as they are from God. Doctrines come from man's ridiculous attempt of placing God's counsel under the microscope of human reasoning. doctrines are NOT knowledge.

We learn every day or our lives. Any one who feels he has "arrived" and "accomplished" should wear a big 'L' sign on his back! He that thinks he knows when he does not know is acting like a fool - and it does not matter if that person is noetic or viaro (1 Corinthians 3:18).

I have never in any way implied otherwise.

I'm sure you have an informed personal opinion on the Sabbath and such issues around what day(s) to worship. You cannot pretend that to not be concerned about it, unless you are trying to say that you don't even worship God at all - so, whether you choose any specific day or not would be based on your persuasion of what you read in God's Word as a doctrine of the Christian faith and testimony, NO?!?

and?

Please don't shout - especially when you might be wrong! Hebrews 6:1-2, for example, possibly shows how very wrong you might be! Let's even allow your own argument for the moment, viz: your assumption that these are the things that define your own conclusion -

[list][li]salvation - with "principal elements", such as -[/li]
[li]restitution,[/li]
[li]genuine repentance,[/li]
[li]love,[/li]
[li]fellowship with saints,[/li]
[li]faith[/li]
[li]and holiness[/li][/list]

Nice. I recognise that there could be more - since you listed those as "examples". However, what does Hebrews 6:1-2 say? In one word: MOVE ON FROM THERE to maturity - and as such, there are in fact several other aspects that we should explore as a necessary part of our Christian faith BEYOND just the doctrine of salvation -

[list]"Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of - [/list]

[list][li]repentance from dead works,[/li]
[li]and of faith toward God,[/li]
[li]Of the doctrine of baptisms,[/li]
[li]and of laying on of hands,[/li]
[li]and of resurrection of the dead,[/li]
[li]and of eternal judgment.[/li][/list]

All these things are just the "foundation" - that is not all we should be cemented on. Hebrews 6:1-2 says we should move on from these things unto "perfection"; and it seems clear that the things you mentioned earlier are just "the first principles of the oracles of God" as Hebrews 5:12-14.

So, when you have come to the conclusion that beyond what you assert, there is nothing more - the end result is that you will have nothing else to present. We can only receive if we're open to God - but shouting our own small conclusions as the limit of all that defines Christianity is quit unproductive.

There is nothing u mentioned above that could not be deduced from previous rejoinder with u.

Your opinion. I guess when you go through Scripture and see that you're too narrow in your arguments, then light will dawn on you. Till then, fingers crossed for you, my bro.

narrow? how narrow, if u could discern the source of most of the prevalent doctrines in the church today, u might get have an appreciative understanding of the darkness disguised as light.

@noetic16,

noetic16:

there was nothing careless in what I said . . . it was u who did not comprehend the full point I was making. what do u imply doctrine? is the various division between the many denominations a result of different doctrines? if the body of Christ be the same, why are there so many contradicting doctrines? why should a believer be involved in such divisions?

You didn't make yourself clear enough, and the way you talked about doctrine was quite careless. However, the questions of your concerns have been addressed in my post at #62 - and I also noted that the believer ought to exercise discernment in these things.

noetic16:
why not get involved in just the principal elements of salvation and subsequently walk with God?

Again, I addressed that when I made reference to Hebrews 5 and 6. If one were to be limited to just the principal elements of salvation, that is simply ignoring what those two chapters in Hebrews are saying. Worst of all, it does not tend to growth and maturity, but makes the believer who recommends 'just principal elements' to become dull of hearing (Heb. 5:11-14).

noetic16:

This is a far cry from the point I raised. There is a whole difference between doctrine and knowledge. knowledge comes from teachings, which are universal as they are from God. Doctrines come from man's ridiculous attempt of placing God's counsel under the microscope of human reasoning. doctrines are NOT knowledge.

I disgree. You are making out your own narrow view and drawing hasty conclusions. There are doctrines of men (Colossians 2:22); and also doctrines of devils (1 Timothy 4:1) - but we can't confuse them for the doctrine of God nor forget that in the time of prevailing decadence, there exists still the doctrine of the Father (John 7:16).

It is the latter (the doctrine of the Father) that we often forget just because there are perverse doctrines around. However, God has always looked for His own people who desire to be taught of Him, and thus we find in Isaiah 28:9 that He seeks to impart both doctrine and knowledge to His people -

          'Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make
           to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk,
           and drawn from the bosoms.'

One immediately sees that "doctrine" and "knowledge" are not strange phenomena with God; nor can anyone maintain that "Doctrines come from man's ridiculous attempt of placing God's counsel under the microscope of human reasoning" - to maintain such simply means you're set to confuse issues further without being careful enough to distinguish between the doctrines of men and the doctrine of God. Jesus indeed came with a doctrine, and the life-changing effects upon His hearers made them marvel (Matt. 7:28 and 22:33; Luke 4:32).

noetic16:

There is nothing u mentioned above that could not be deduced from previous rejoinder with u.

You didn't care to see it was a direct response to your hasty conclusions previously. The believer is to grow beyond your very limited recommendations - that was the point in Hebrews 5 and 6.

noetic16:

narrow? how narrow, if u could discern the source of most of the prevalent doctrines in the church today, u might get have an appreciative understanding of the darkness disguised as light.

Sorry, you're too occupied with the negative to the utter exclusion of the postive! Dude, doctrines of men and of devils do not mean that the doctrine of God should be completely forgotten. So when you begin to draw unbalanced conclusions about "doctrine", you make your reader wonder about your ideas. Be clear in what you say, distinguish the one from the other, let your concerns be in context of not being too polarised to just one side - and perhaps others can more easily grasp your views.

@viaro: God bless you and enrich your life even further as well! Amen. 

---

noetic16:

1. God needs nothing from us.

2. These are end-time doctrines whose interpretations are usually with loads of holes.

@noetic: First off, I dislike these arguments but let me reply my take on this particular point one last time 

Point two: the darker the night, the brighter the light. The fact that end-time doctrines exist does not mean the truth should be hidden.

Then point one. That is not so. God has an inheritance. This inheritance / profit / gain is us as saints, and this is an umbrella for a set of doctrines that you have obviously overlooked. It is what God gains in exchange for salvation. An inheritance is only obtained after someone dies, and in this case, He gains an inheritance in us saints after Christ died.

Zephaniah 3:17: "The Lord thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing."

God has not only redeemed His people from bondage and death but for Himself. Salvation is just the beginning. It's like saying that a man purchases day-old chicks, works hard taking care of the poultry farm, then dies before they start laying eggs and leaves it to his son; and then the poultry say that the transfer of ownership (salvation) is all that matters so they don't need to lay eggs anymore since their owner who required the eggs is dead. The transfer of ownership from man to son (salvation and bringing us to God) is just the fundamental of doctrines. Now that you are with God, will you sit on your haunches? There is work to be done as God's glorious inheritance.

Just as a man who has inherited a house or an estate takes possession of it and then makes improvements, so God is now fitting His people for Himself. He who has begun a good work (salvation: fundamental) within His own is now performing it until the day of Jesus Christ (Phil. 1:6). He is now conforming us to the image of His Son: each Christian can say with the Psalmist, "the Lord will perfect that which concerneth me" (Ps. 138:8 ). Nor will God be satisfied until we have been glorified.

Eph 1:18  By having the eyes of your heart flooded with light, so that you can know and understand the hope to which He has called you, and how rich is His glorious inheritance in the saints (His set-apart ones)

Other references:
Deuteronomy 32:9, Prov. 8:31, Ps. 33:12, 1 Peter 2:9, Ps. 94:14, 1 Cor. 6:19, Rev 21:1-3

So think about it again, what does God require from us? As viaro has correctly said, the Bible identifies the doctrine of the Father, the doctrines of Christ, doctrines of men (and well, doctrines of devils). You on the other hand, are insinuating that only the doctrines of Christ matter and the doctrines of the Father need not be considered? 

viaro:

@noetic16,

You didn't make yourself clear enough, and the way you talked about doctrine was quite careless. However, the questions of your concerns have been addressed in my post at #62 - and I also noted that the believer ought to exercise discernment in these things.

Fortunately for you, I am not very forthcoming for a "debate".
1.  Your posts (#62) recommends human teachers but teaches discernment. why should errors come from these human teachers? why should they not always teach the mind of God and the HS? the bible NT consists of Paul's teachings because God approves of his teachings. . . . .why should that not be the case for latter day teachers? and why is discernment more important than the teacher? does that not tell of unGodly doctrines? why not go to the right pulpit to learn messages from God? is this rocket science?

2. You assertion of a careless statement. . .remains ur opinion and an uninformed opinion at that. Latter day doctrines have only divided the body of Christ and confused the would-be saints of Christ. So tell me, should believer pay tithe or not?, cover their hair or not?, walk bare footed in a white garment or not?, speak in unknown tongues or not?, ask for love offerings or not? attend church service thrice a week or not?, worship on saturday or sunday? should believer consult prophets for personal prophecy or not? should the presence of the holy spirit be marked with shakings or not? should believers sow seed for blessings and break through or not?

It is ur rejoinder to my assertion that is both misguided, careless and ignorant. Perhaps u should simply have asked me for clarification. And I gave u the opportunity to do so in my last pot.

3. And before u answer 2 above, tell me where these doctrines came from? who influenced them? are both sides of these doctrines from the holy spirit? is God the author of confusion?

Again, I addressed that when I made reference to Hebrews 5 and 6. If one were to be limited to just the principal elements of salvation, that is simply ignoring what those two chapters in Hebrews are saying. Worst of all, it does not tend to growth and maturity, but makes the believer who recommends 'just principal elements' to become dull of hearing (Heb. 5:11-14).

1. This is part of the lies being sold as a doctrine. does growth come from doctrinal teachings of from fellowship and walk with God? where does growth come from, is it by believing the ridiculous scriptural interpretation of pastoral thieves or by simply walking with God? who revealed these teachings to the pastoral thieves in question? was it from their knowledge or from God?

2. how does the teachings of hebrews 5 and 6 differ from my primordial analysis?

I disgree. You are making out your own narrow view and drawing hasty conclusions. There are doctrines of men (Colossians 2:22); and also doctrines of devils (1 Timothy 4:1) - but we can't confuse them for the doctrine of God nor forget that in the time of prevailing decadence, there exists still the doctrine of the Father (John 7:16).

It is the latter (the doctrine of the Father) that we often forget just because there are perverse doctrines around. However, God has always looked for His own people who desire to be taught of Him, and thus we find in Isaiah 28:9 that He seeks to impart both doctrine and knowledge to His people -

          'Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make
           to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk,
           and drawn from the bosoms.'

One immediately sees that "doctrine" and "knowledge" are not strange phenomena with God; nor can anyone maintain that "Doctrines come from man's ridiculous attempt of placing God's counsel under the microscope of human reasoning" - to maintain such simply means you're set to confuse issues further without being careful enough to distinguish between the doctrines of men and the doctrine of God. Jesus indeed came with a doctrine, and the life-changing effects upon His hearers made them marvel (Matt. 7:28 and 22:33; Luke 4:32).

blah blah blah . . . the above is simply irrelevant.

1. There is no dispute about the doctrines of God, devils or men. The fundamental question is how does a believer learn the doctrines of God? is it through human teachers or through the counsels of the holy spirit?

2. there is no where in the epistle above, where u told us the similarity between doctrines and knowledge?
For example: A. God tells Adam that "the day u eat of the forbidden fruit u shall die" . .  .this is knowledge for man to live at peace with God.
B. God tells the children of Israel to pay a tithe of their farm produce to the priestly elite every 3/7 years. . . . . .a man tells his church to pay one-tenth of their income as a tithe.
God's instruction in A is a word of knowledge and not a doctrine. God's instruction in B is a doctrine and not a word of knowledge. man's instruction in B is his own doctrine and a misrepresentation of God's teachings.

You didn't care to see it was a direct response to your hasty conclusions previously. The believer is to grow beyond your very limited recommendations - that was the point in Hebrews 5 and 6.

This is rather Lame. can u please highlight the growth a believer should experience outside of my analysis. . . .but please start by defining GROWTH

Sorry, you're too occupied with the negative to the utter exclusion of the postive! Dude, doctrines of men and of devils do not mean that the doctrine of God should be completely forgotten. So when you begin to draw unbalanced conclusions about "doctrine", you make your reader wonder about your ideas. Be clear in what you say, distinguish the one from the other, let your concerns be in context of not being too polarised to just one side - and perhaps others can more easily grasp your views.

typical viaro, making senseless deductions from people's posts. was the above made in reference to my post?

noetic16:

Fortunately for you, I am not very forthcoming for a "debate".

The thread was not for a debate either - perhaps this is one point you have been missing all along.

noetic16:
1. Your posts (#62) recommends human teachers but teaches discernment. why should errors come from these human teachers? why should they not always teach the mind of God and the HS? the bible NT consists of Paul's teachings because God approves of his teachings. . . . .why should that not be the case for latter day teachers? and why is discernment more important than the teacher? does that not tell of unGodly doctrines? why not go to the right pulpit to learn messages from God? is this rocket science?

You're arguing far from what I posted in #62. I did not "recommend" human teachers for heresies or errors. Instead, I sought to address basic questions: why are there heresies at all? How do they occur? What does God's Word say on the subject? Second, having sought to address those basic questions, I noted that even where these things are evident, the believer is to exercise discernment. This is not the same thing that you're talking about here, and it shows a serious lack of discernment on your part and casts doubt as to whether you even read that post at all.

noetic16:
2. You assertion of a careless statement. . .remains your opinion and an uninformed opinion at that. Latter day doctrines have only divided the body of Christ and confused the would-be saints of Christ. So tell me, should believer pay tithe or not?, cover their hair or not?, walk bare footed in a white garment or not?, speak in unknown tongues or not?, ask for love offerings or not? attend church service thrice a week or not?, worship on saturday or sunday? should believer consult prophets for personal prophecy or not? should the presence of the holy spirit be marked with shakings or not? should believers sow seed for blessings and break through or not?

Your statement on "doctrine" was careless indeed. That is the point you're struggling to excuse, but doing so poorly! All the questions you've asked above have to do with doctrines at some level - and whatever you recommend as answers would again be your own interpretation that mirrors your 'doctrine'. You cannot ask these questions and wave them away as if you have nothing to say about them - and what you say would definitely mirror your own teaching, no?!?

But when you argue as you did initially that (a) "of what essence is doctrines to a believer?", and (b) "Doctrines come from man's ridiculous attempt of placing God's counsel under the microscope of human reasoning", you only tend to confuse issues all the more for yourself. You have nowhere acknowledged the distinction between the doctrine of God and that of men - once you acknowledge this distinction, you will see that all your arguments against "doctrine" is absolutely unnecessary and useless.

noetic16:

It is your rejoinder to my assertion that is both misguided, careless and ignorant.

Thank you - only you understand the mind of God, nevermind that you never seek to calmly see that you're confusing issues for yourself. Is it any wonder that you alone can't understand yourself?

noetic16:
Perhaps u should simply have asked me for clarification. And I gave u the opportunity to do so in my last pot.

Clarification? You had all the opportunity in the world to have corrected yourself without much ado - but when you make very arrogant assertions about "doctrine" and yet can't see how very arrogant your statements are, you expect us to waste time asking you to clarify your obviously WRONG conclusions?!? Is it not clear to you that something is patently wrong in some of your assertions?

noetic16:

3. And before u answer 2 above, tell me where these doctrines came from? who influenced them? are both sides of these doctrines from the holy spirit? is God the author of confusion?

Please stop being childish - as if you didn't read the distinctions I made between the doctrines of men, doctrines of devils, and the doctrine of God!! Scripture does not just flat out conclude that "doctrines" come from men - it quite clearly shows the difference between these various doctrines and points out what God would have us receive! Is that too hard for you?

noetic16:
1. This is part of the lies being sold as a doctrine. does growth come from doctrinal teachings of from fellowship and walk with God?

It comes from both - it is because you are too far gone with your sanctimony that is why you keep polarising your arguments against "doctrine". What does Acts 2:42 tell us? "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." Did you miss that "doctrine" is listed first in that verse? Your problem here is that you can't bring yourself to see that there is a vital place for "doctrine" in Christian fellowship - that word seems to irk you so badly that you react so badly to it and can't see any distinction between false doctrine and that which points us to doctrine in Christian fellowship!

noetic16:
where does growth come from, is it by believing the ridiculous scriptural interpretation of pastoral thieves or by simply walking with God? who revealed these teachings to the pastoral thieves in question? was it from their knowledge or from God?

Did I point you to 'pastoral thieves' in quoting verses for "doctrine" in the Bible? Why is it so difficult for you to see the difference? You can argue all you want against "doctrine" - please calm down and open your own Bible and re-read those verses already cited to point out the difference!

noetic16:

2. how does the teachings of hebrews 5 and 6 differ from my primordial analysis?

I've already explained earlier. Just don't play games and try being difficult to yourself.

noetic16:

blah blah blah . . . the above is simply irrelevant.

The tune you always sing when you have nothing to say. Well done.

noetic16:

1. There is no dispute about the doctrines of God, devils or men.

What do you mean by that? Did you ever anywhere try to make such a dictinction, huh? If you ever had attempted recognizing that distinction, would you have been yapping vacantly and reacting all around against "doctrine"? Are you so confused between these distinctions that you just can't see how your obviously flat statement about "doctrine" is careless and disgraceful?

noetic16:

The fundamental question is how does a believer learn the doctrines of God? is it through human teachers or through the counsels of the holy spirit?

Tell me - does the Bible not point to TEACHERS as human beings in the Body of Christ? Ephesians 4:11 sound familiar? What about Acts 13:1? Oh, God Himself set teachers in the Church, according to 1 Corinthians 12:28, no?!?

All these are the gracious gift of God to the Body of Christ - they are not to be confused for the "false teachers" bringing damnable heresies, of whom we have been warned against (2 Peter 2:1). The teachers in the Body of Christ are gifted and mature believers who are set in the Church by God Himself - that is His Word. You may argue long and hard against this fact, but that would merely be your own problem and has no bearing whatsoever on what Scripture says to the believer who is reasonable and calm enough to see it for himself or herself!

noetic16:

2. there is no where in the epistle above, where u told us the similarity between doctrines and knowledge?

You didn't ask for a similarity or dissimilarity - you flat out made categorical statements that deny the value of DOCTRINE in the life of the believer, and I responded to show you in God's Word that He desires to teach His people knowledge and make them understand doctrine. You did not set forth the difference between them either, other than just yapped a blank statement about them as if the one is opposed to the other. If they are mutually exclusive and have absolutely no connection between them, let's see how you exemplified them below -

noetic16:

For example: A. God tells Adam that "the day u eat of the forbidden fruit u shall die" . . .this is knowledge for man to live at peace with God.
B. God tells the children of Israel to pay a tithe of their farm produce to the priestly elite every 3/7 years. . . . . .a man tells his church to pay one-tenth of their income as a tithe.
God's instruction in A is a word of knowledge and not a doctrine. God's instruction in B is a doctrine and not a word of knowledge. man's instruction in B is his own doctrine and a misrepresentation of God's teachings.

Thank you - perhaps you should see that the very example in A. forms Christian DOCTRINE in the NT. For example, Romans 5:14-21 shows us what Adam's disobedience effected in humanity. If that is not the case, what then could have been the reason behind Romans 5 saying anything about Adam's disobedience in Genesis?

Doctrine is connected with knowledge - they are not disconnected. However, the value of doctrine in the life of the believer is such that it sets the parameters for fellowship among believers: for us, we are urged to abide in the doctrine of Christ (2 John 1:9) ; and if anyone comes without that doctrine, we are to receive him not (2 John 1:10). It is not just a question of "knowledge" being far more important than "doctrine" - for whetever "knowledge" anyone might claim, the doctrine of Christ is the defining grounds for fellowship!

This is why when we go back and remind you about the statements you made on doctrine -

(a) "of what essence is doctrines to a believer?", and
(b) "Doctrines come from man's ridiculous attempt of placing God's counsel
under the microscope of human reasoning]"

. . .it is clear from these that there's every reason to show your statement is false and because it is unqualified. "False doctrine" would have better qualified your statement in (b); but that in itself does not mean that 'doctrine' is of no essence to the believer as is implied in your statement in (a). If you recognized that there is value in "doctrine" to the believer, one would not have read that statement in (a), let alone your unqualified assertion in (b) above!

noetic16:

This is rather Lame. can u please highlight the growth a believer should experience outside of my analysis. . . .but please start by defining GROWTH

Growth is the maturity a believer attains as he/she continues in fellowship with the saints in the things of God (see 1 Peter 2:2). Such a growth finds the "apostles doctrine" an essential part of that fellowship - Acts 2:42 and 1 John 1:3.

Now, in Hebrews 5 we learn that when believers are not maturing in fellowship where the Word is taught, the situation presents such believers as "dull of hearing". Why? For the simple reason that they are stuck on the same "elementary principles" which seem to be your hallmark -

[list]Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.[/list]

[list]For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. - Hebrews 5:11-14[/list]

Then follow through with Hebrews 6:1-2 >>

[list]Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of - [/list]

[list][li]repentance from dead works,[/li]
[li]and of faith toward God,[/li]
[li]Of the doctrine of baptisms,[/li]
[li]and of laying on of hands,[/li]
[li]and of resurrection of the dead,[/li]
[li]and of eternal judgment.[/li][/list]

Synopsis: on the one hand, those who are recommending that the "elementary principles of salvation" is all that the believer needs are in effect falling into the same idea that Hebrews 5 shows will tend only to those who are dull of hearing! Those "elementary principles" are the foundation - but that is not all there is nor should they be all that a believer should be concerned with! Those who want to stay on that note are babes and thus cannot digest 'strong meat' - whereas, those who go on to maturity beyond those elemtary/foundational level are showing they have their senses exercised to handle 'strong meat'.

Therefore, chapter 6 recommends that we leave those elementary principles behind and MOVE ON to maturity! This chapter does not say it is alright to stay with the elemtary principles you recommend (under the guise of "principal elements of salvation". It says: noetic16, LEAVE THOSE ELEMENTARY PRINCIPLES and GO ON to maturity BEYOND that foundation!

Your analysis, therefore, is just a laugh - it is more the arrogant chirpings of a self-satisfied know-it-all who concludes there's nothing more than his own "analysis" where elementray things are your hallmark! Stay there - it suits you just fine!

noetic16:
typical viaro, making senseless deductions from people's posts. was the above made in reference to my post?

It certain does - that is why you cannot respond other than excuse yourself lamely.

when will noetic and viaro start behaving like adults and will not challenge each other?

InesQor
Thanks, I'm feeling Day 5's God's blueprint. Way to go.

Viaro
I may be wrong on this but it seems that Noetic doesn't regard the epistles or perhaps the NT as the Word of God, but as men's view. That may explain his 'stand'.

toba:

when will noetic and viaro start behaving like adults and will not challenge each other?

Senior, how are you today? I'm willing and trying to behave and have not "challenged" neotic16. When someone arrogates to himself the privilege of spouting absolute rubbish because he has some axe to grind with false teachers, should we leave such rants to poison the well and then conclude that 'doctrine' has no essence in the life of the believer?

I initially didn't want to take him up; but he just seems to assume he knows it all - how much of what he thinks he knows that he can't recognize that God has given us teachers, that is one thing I would like to find out from him.

Image123:

Viaro
I may be wrong on this but it seems that Noetic doesn't regard the epistles or perhaps the NT as the Word of God, but as men's view. That may explain his 'stand'.

That's closer to my suspicion, but I'm quite reserved on that because I don't want to preempt it since he has not come out to declare it himself as such. I just wonder how someone in his capacity would be making very strenuous arguments against "teachers" and "doctrine" without recognizing there IS a difference between the type that is troubling him and those who God has set in the Church.



_________

@InesQor,
God bless you too, many times over. Your daily input to the 'digest' is refreshing.

viaro:

Senior, how are you today? I'm willing and trying to behave and have not "challenged" neotic16. When someone arrogates to himself the privilege of spouting absolute rubbish because he has some axe to grind with false teachers, should we leave such rants to poison the well and then conclude that 'doctrine' has no essence in the life of the believer?

I initially didn't want to take him up; but he just seems to assume he knows it all - how much of what he thinks he knows that he can't recognize that God has given us teachers, that is one thing I would like to find out from him.

Well just keep it calm. I really like u guys and ur knowledge amuses me alot.

I believe u both can still be civil no?

^^Yes sir. Thanks for being there for us.

Both Viaro and Noetic are strong willed and knowledgable characters. I do not think any two of us have the same outlook on every matter because we have varying experiences. Why then would any one not "try" to see the other's point. The only place where I have issues with anyone is where I see/sense/believe a motive that is self-serving or contrary to the interest of Christianity. Noetic is different. Viaro is different. WHICH of us is perfect? If none, why can't we all just get along and "listen" to the other side before the ego - thingy commences.

Me, my only wahala is Viaro being the credibility "prop" some use here. They take 95% of what he puts forward and adds a dash of error here and there. Satan has nothing on such also "trying to "BE" like the most high". No originality, just a mirror that distorts.

For those of us who believe we are believers', it might be worth it to show some humility and stop blanket declaring others to be wrong. IMO, none knows in FULL and the Bible supports that assertion!

viaro:

The thread was not for a debate either - perhaps this is one point you have been missing all along.

If I ever came across as all-knowing and arrogant or perhaps as someone who disrespects the scriptures. . . I do sincerely apologise. That was never my intention as I expressed myself as I deemed fit. However I do completely disagree with the lack of substance in all of ur arguments. no insult intended.

You're arguing far from what I posted in #62. I did not "recommend" human teachers for heresies or errors. Instead, I sought to address basic questions: why are there heresies at all? How do they occur? What does God's Word say on the subject? Second, having sought to address those basic questions, I noted that even where these things are evident, the believer is to exercise discernment. This is not the same thing that you're talking about here, and it shows a serious lack of discernment on your part and casts doubt as to whether you even read that post at all.

Viaro, with due respect, I find ur reference to post 62 very irrelevant in this discourse. The reason is because u submitted that teachers are meant to teach but the believer also requires the spirit of discernment. contrary to my position of the holy spirit being the teacher. Take for instance Apostle Paul wrote more than half of the entire NT, this is so because God gave him the message and approved of his teaching. why is this not applicable to the teachers u postulate and vouch for? why does a believer need discernment to decipher the intentions of their message?

Your statement on "doctrine" was careless indeed. That is the point you're struggling to excuse, but doing so poorly! All the questions you've asked above have to do with doctrines at some level - and whatever you recommend as answers would again be your own interpretation that mirrors your 'doctrine'. You cannot ask these questions and wave them away as if you have nothing to say about them - and what you say would definitely mirror your own teaching, no?!?

But when you argue as you did initially that (a) "of what essence is doctrines to a believer?", and (b) "Doctrines come from man's ridiculous attempt of placing God's counsel under the microscope of human reasoning", you only tend to confuse issues all the more for yourself. You have nowhere acknowledged the distinction between the doctrine of God and that of men - once you acknowledge this distinction, you will see that all your arguments against "doctrine" is absolutely unnecessary and useless.

This is rather pathetic. . . why have u ignored all the questions I asked on doctrines? does that mean u dont know the answers to them? what stops u from admitting that?. . . .let me repeat them here below.

1[i]. So tell me, should believer pay tithe or not?, cover their hair or not?, walk bare footed in a white garment or not?, speak in unknown tongues or not?, ask for love offerings or not? attend church service thrice a week or not?, worship on saturday or sunday? should believer consult prophets for personal prophecy or not? should the presence of the holy spirit be marked with shakings or not? should believers sow seed for blessings and break through or not?[/i]

2. You picked out two phrases I used with the sole intent of misrepresenting my views. . . .why did u choose to conveniently ignore this question I asked [size=13pt]is the knowledge in question, pertinent to the eternal life of the believer?[/size] what u have failed to show is any doctrine outside of the ones I listed that enriches the eternal life of a believer.

3. You keep throwing unnecessary, irrelevant words and posers. I have no reason to acknowledge the difference between the doctrines of man and God. Even the resident atheists namely tudor, mazaje, huxley and toneyb have stated and endlessly ridiculed the often ridiculous differences between God's doctrines and latter day men doctrines, how much more myself, a believer. dude, I just dont see the relevance of such to this discourse.

Thank you - only you understand the mind of God, nevermind that you never seek to calmly see that you're confusing issues for yourself. Is it any wonder[/size] that you alone can't understand yourself?

what part of my post suggests that I know tha absolute mind of God. please let us limit our differences to issues and not to ridicule or to put the lord's name into disrepute. I have not in any way suggested that I am speaking for God or declaring His mind. we are both having a mental exercise by displaying our understanding of the scriptures. The fundamental difference in our differences lies with the source of our influences. . . .one is influenced by the theological carnality in the church, while the other is influenced by spiritual exercise with the holy spirit.

Clarification? You had all the opportunity in the world to have corrected yourself without much ado - but when you make very arrogant assertions about "doctrine" and yet can't see how very arrogant your statements are, you expect us to waste time asking you to clarify your obviously WRONG conclusions?!? Is it not clear to you that something is patently wrong in some of your assertions?

blah blah blah. .  , if u had good intentions, u would have asked me for clarification and not make rather meaningless misrepresentation of my views.

Please stop being childish - as if you didn't read the distinctions I made between the doctrines of men, doctrines of devils, and the doctrine of God!! Scripture does not just flat out conclude that "doctrines" come from men - it quite clearly shows the difference between these various doctrines and points out what God would have us receive! Is that too hard for you?

irrelevant. The subject has nothing to do with the differences between man made doctrines and Godly doctrines.

It comes from both - it is because you are too far gone with your sanctimony that is why you keep polarising your arguments against "doctrine".[size=18pt] What does Acts 2:42 tell us? "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine[/size] and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." Did you miss that "doctrine" is listed first in that verse? Your problem here is that you can't bring yourself to see that there is a vital place for "doctrine" in Christian fellowship - that word seems to irk you so badly that you react so badly to it and can't see any distinction between false doctrine and that which points us to doctrine in Christian fellowship!

what was the apostles doctrine?
was it different from salvation, repentance, baptism, feeding the poor, restitution, testifying et all.[size=18pt] Please show me anything in the bible that testifies of the apostles doing anything else?[/size]

I've already explained earlier. Just don't play games and try being difficult to yourself.

No u did not. how does my primordial analyses differ from hebrews 5 and 6 account?

The tune you always sing when you have nothing to say. Well done.

  its not my favourite.

What do you mean by that? Did you ever anywhere try to make such a dictinction, huh? If you ever had attempted recognizing that distinction, would you have been yapping vacantly and reacting all around against "doctrine"? Are you so confused between these distinctions that you just can't see how your obviously flat statement about "doctrine" is careless and disgraceful?

mr viaro, pls get real 

You were the one who emphasised on the different types of doctrines. . . . .that was not part of the discussion and I had no reason to state anything related to such. what u have not shown me yet is the relevance of this "new information" u have disclosed 

Tell me - does the Bible not point to TEACHERS as human beings in the Body of Christ? Ephesians 4:11 sound familiar? What about Acts 13:1? Oh, God Himself set teachers in the Church, according to 1 Corinthians 12:28, no?!?

1.I am sure u read my first post to u, I made mention of the following
The words of God are not an oratory tool for crafts men. They are words to made alive by the deeds of men You cannot tell a hungry to "accept Jesus or be damned" . . .Nope, u feed him and cater for his needs, then tell him of the forthcoming kingdom. So also can u not tell a unclothed man to "accept Jesus or be damned" You clothe him, feed him, shelter him, meet his needs and then tell him of the forthcoming kingdom. The same goes for the imprisoned, hopeless, helpless and other members of the society,

2. What type of teaching did Jesus ask the disciples to do . . . .He asked them to FEED his flock. . . this was what He commanded Peter John 21:15-17 and this was the apostles doctrine Acts 4:32-35

3. This also was Apostle Paul's doctrine as he was instructed by the apostles: Galatians 2:10.

4. If u must know, teaching is NOT the oratory use of words but the practical application of God's words.

All these are the gracious gift of God to the Body of Christ - they are not to be confused for the "false teachers" bringing damnable heresies, of whom we have been warned against (2 Peter 2:1). The teachers in the Body of Christ are gifted and mature believers who are set in the Church by God Himself - that is His Word. You may argue long and hard against this fact, but that would merely be your own problem and has no bearing whatsoever on what Scripture says to the believer who is reasonable and calm enough to see it for himself or herself!

I will not allow u to side step this "discussion" There has been no reference to false teachers. but the essence of human teaching in relation to doctrines has been the subject of discourse. keep on track viaro 

viaro:

You didn't ask for a similarity or dissimilarity - you flat out made categorical statements that deny the value of DOCTRINE in the life of the believer, and I responded to show you in God's Word that He desires to teach His people knowledge and make them understand doctrine. You did not set forth the difference between them either, other than just yapped a blank statement about them as if the one is opposed to the other. If they are mutually exclusive and have absolutely no connection between them, let's see how you exemplified them below -

Ok, now I ask. . . .please show me the similarities or differences between doctrine and knowledge?

Thank you - perhaps you should see that the very example in A. forms Christian DOCTRINE in the NT. For example, Romans 5:14-21 shows us what Adam's disobedience effected in humanity. If that is not the case, what then could have been the reason behind Romans 5 saying anything about Adam's disobedience in Genesis?

Doctrine is connected with knowledge - they are not disconnected. However, the value of doctrine in the life of the believer is such that it sets the parameters for fellowship among believers: for us, we are urged to abide in the doctrine of Christ (2 John 1:9) ; and if anyone comes without that doctrine, we are to receive him not (2 John 1:10). It is not just a question of "knowledge" being far more important than "doctrine" - for whetever "knowledge" anyone might claim, the doctrine of Christ is the defining grounds for fellowship!

This is quite ambiguous and reveals ur limited understanding of the subject here.

1. The original sin and the price Christ payed is a DOCTRINE of SALVATION. . .  .but God's immortal words to Adam and Eve concerning the forbidden fruit is NOT a doctrine but a word of KNOWLEDGE. how does "thou shall not eat the forbidden fruit" constitute a doctrine?

2. Doctrine can be formed from words of knowledge. . but are not words of knowledge. I gave u a second example on tithing which was clearly a doctrine, the case of the sabbath which is clearly a doctrine, . . . . , let me ask u this. . .when God told the Israelites not to keep extra manna for the next day, was that a doctrine or a word of knowledge?

3. be humble, ask me to explain these concepts in simpler form to u 

This is why when we go back and remind you about the statements you made on doctrine -

(a) "of what essence is doctrines to a believer?", and
(b) "Doctrines come from man's ridiculous attempt of placing God's counsel
        under the microscope of human reasoning]"

Honesty is ideal. . . . u should place those statements side by side with the question I asked in that same post 86: [size=13pt]is the knowledge in question, pertinent to the eternal life of the believer?[/size] which u are yet to answer.

. . .it is clear from these that there's every reason to show your statement is false and because it is unqualified. "False doctrine" would have better qualified your statement in (b); but that in itself does not mean that 'doctrine' is of no essence to the believer as is implied in your statement in (a). If you recognized that there is value in "doctrine" to the believer, one would not have read that statement in (a), let alone your unqualified assertion in (b) above!

what is the value of doctrine to a believer? Do us all one favour. . .Name one doctrine outside of salvation that is essential to the eternal life of a believer?

Growth is the maturity a believer attains as he/she continues in fellowship with the saints in the things of God (see 1 Peter 2:2). Such a growth finds the "apostles doctrine" an essential part of that fellowship - Acts 2:42 and 1 John 1:3.

1. 1 peter 2:2 talks of believers having a desire for the word to grow. It does NOT define growth

2. Acts 2:42 tells of the apostles doctrine. . . and the apostles doctrine is what Christ commanded Peter to do. . .the same thing peter commanded Paul to do . . . .which is to feed the poor. Acts 2:42 does not define growth.

3. 1 john 1:3:  does not talk about growth in any context.

4. Viaro please do me a favour and educate my ignorance. . .[size=20pt]what is the meaning of this GROWTH u keep talking about? where is it in the scriptures? which of the apostles practised it?[/size]

Now, in Hebrews 5 we learn that when believers are not maturing in fellowship where the Word is taught, the situation presents such believers as "dull of hearing". Why? For the simple reason that they are stuck on the same "elementary principles" which seem to be your hallmark -

[list]Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.[/list]

[list]For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. - Hebrews 5:11-14[/list]

Then follow through with Hebrews 6:1-2 >>

[list]Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of - [/list]

[list][li]repentance from dead works,[/li]
[li]and of faith toward God,[/li]
[li]Of the doctrine of baptisms,[/li]
[li]and of laying on of hands,[/li]
[li]and of resurrection of the dead,[/li]
[li]and of eternal judgment.[/li][/list]

Synopsis: on the one hand, those who are recommending that the "elementary principles of salvation" is all that the believer needs are in effect falling into the same idea that Hebrews 5 shows will tend only to those who are dull of hearing! Those "elementary principles" are the foundation - but that is not all there is nor should they be all that a believer should be concerned with! Those who want to stay on that note are babes and thus cannot digest 'strong meat' - whereas, those who go on to maturity beyond those elemtary/foundational level are showing they have their senses exercised to handle 'strong meat'.

Therefore, chapter 6 recommends that we leave those elementary principles behind and MOVE ON to maturity! This chapter does not say it is alright to stay with the elemtary principles you recommend (under the guise of "principal elements of salvation". It says: noetic16, LEAVE THOSE ELEMENTARY PRINCIPLES and GO ON to maturity BEYOND that foundation!

Paul did not imply leaving the teachings of Christ or the development of cow meat like u want to make us believe 
Paul spoke about PERFECTION. which is all about our eternal life and the second coming of Christ . . . .is that rocket science?

Your analysis, therefore, is just a laugh - it is more the arrogant chirpings of a self-satisfied know-it-all who concludes there's nothing more than his own "analysis" where elementray things are your hallmark! Stay there - it suits you just fine!

It certain does - that is why you cannot respond other than excuse yourself lamely.

pls permit me to laugh in arabic 

@noetic16,

I would rather like to respect the feelings of other readers and contributors in this thread and leave it off here. Cheers.

toba:

when will noetic and viaro start behaving like adults and will not challenge each other?

henceforth, I will tone down my responses. I have nothing against viaro.

Image123:


Viaro
I may be wrong on this but it seems that Noetic doesn't regard the epistles or perhaps the NT as the Word of God, but as men's view. That may explain his 'stand'.

On the contrary, I do regard the epistles as the infallible and perfect words of God inspired by the holy spirit. what I do not accommodate is the personal and greedy human interpretation men have given to it.

viaro:

@noetic16,

I would rather like to respect the feelings of other readers and contributors in this thread and leave it off here. Cheers.

well understood bro. cheers.

Mehn! This thread has suffered!! I have been away for almost half a day, and. . . this?

Please, people. Let's try to stay on course, thanks.