Author Topic: UR  (Read 1605 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Beloved Servant

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 4290
  • David's sling
UR
« on: June 30, 2009, 06:48:34 AM »
This truth, that God will be all and in all, must never become a religion or a doctrine.
Must never have a creed or stance.
No laws that bind.
No belief that must be expressed to belong to this group.
This is a spiritual truth.
Not a static idol.
No more, no less.
The pillar will move on and we must follow.
Manna spoils in a day.
We all know and love the truths of the spirit.
Now, let us follow on to know the Lord.


Tim B

  • Guest
Re: UR
« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2009, 09:37:00 AM »
Yeah, making it a doctrine would probably be a bad idea. I know making it a doctrine would seem like a way to make it "for sure," but it would only end up ruining things in the end. Jesus told us many things, but nothing about making a creed. lol

SPOKENFOR

  • Guest
Re: UR
« Reply #2 on: July 01, 2009, 08:16:00 AM »
This truth, that God will be all and in all, must never become a religion or a doctrine.
Must never have a creed or stance.
No laws that bind.
No belief that must be expressed to belong to this group.
This is a spiritual truth.
Not a static idol.
No more, no less.
The pillar will move on and we must follow.
Manna spoils in a day.
We all know and love the truths of the spirit.
Now, let us follow on to know the Lord.



To this I agree..This is something I have been kinda thinking lately. This is not a doctrine, it is a truth and I still want to move from glory to glory to glory and on...to more of the Lord..

martincisneros

  • Guest
Re: UR
« Reply #3 on: July 01, 2009, 12:08:54 PM »
What do you mean by a "doctrine?" because the New Testament has many, many wonderful things to say about sound doctrine that comes from the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Apostles.  If it's not a doctrine, then I'll chuck it right now, curse it wholeheartedly, and get back to the Bible!!  If ET is a doctrine, though a false one, then it's OBVIOUS that UR is a doctrine, and the antidote to the serpent's poison that's crept into the Church that Jesus Christ is raising up.

Offline sheila

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 3413
Re: UR
« Reply #4 on: July 01, 2009, 05:29:37 PM »
Hey Martin

    there are doctors and there are physicians[healers] and never

 the twain shall meet :mshock:

   Doctors are highly educated,in high standard,generally wealthy,

  somewhat egotisitcal and arrogant,looked up to in the eyes of men.

   I liken then to doctrines of men...no love or desire to help

 fellowmans suffering,are somewhat judgemental of their

 pateints ;it's but a lucrative buisiness to enrich themselves.


    Physicains, in the image of God,the Great healer}, use their

 knowledge to heal and relive suffering and restore life, they often

 aren't [super]rich because  the money is incidental to them.

  A real caring and calling to their vocation is in these types,

 they are few,rare,precious and a treasure when found.

  A doctor can become a true physician when apprehended by the Holy spirit...and the transformation is marvelous....Paul is an example.

    Putting your knowledge of God and His Son to good use,to the benefits of others, and not selling it for selfish gain or
aggradizement is the test[imony]

                   Sheila

SPOKENFOR

  • Guest
Re: UR
« Reply #5 on: July 04, 2009, 05:26:58 AM »
What do you mean by a "doctrine?" because the New Testament has many, many wonderful things to say about sound doctrine that comes from the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Apostles.  If it's not a doctrine, then I'll chuck it right now, curse it wholeheartedly, and get back to the Bible!!  If ET is a doctrine, though a false one, then it's OBVIOUS that UR is a doctrine, and the antidote to the serpent's poison that's crept into the Church that Jesus Christ is raising up.

For me and what I mean is that I don't think it should be made out to be a doctrine in the sense as other doctrines are. Most of the time when someone says 'doctrine' they just think of the MANY doctrines out there and say, "Oh, that is just another one, another doctrine". :dontknow:

I like to look at it as more than a doctrine and just the truth, the Spiritual Truth like beloved mentioned. Well, I guess that still makes it a doctrine....

I can't really put into words what I am trying to say. :JCThink:.....

I like the fact that this truth has deepened my relationship with God, and I treasure that more than just seeing it as a doctrine...if that makes any sense..though I treasure the knowing of UR now and believing it...

Either way, it is truth and I believe it as truth, and my relationship with God is much deeper, that is most important of all.

Freedom_in_Christ

  • Guest
Re: UR
« Reply #6 on: July 14, 2009, 06:07:44 AM »
This truth, that God will be all and in all, must never become a religion or a doctrine.
Must never have a creed or stance.
No laws that bind.
No belief that must be expressed to belong to this group.
This is a spiritual truth.
Not a static idol.
No more, no less.
The pillar will move on and we must follow.
Manna spoils in a day.
We all know and love the truths of the spirit.
Now, let us follow on to know the Lord.


I found this definition of "doctrine". I feel that UR is a theological truth and therefore doctrine of the most important order.


Baker's Evangelical Dictionary
of Biblical Theology

Doctrine

(Gk. didaskalia [didaskaliva]). Act of teaching or that which is taught. The use of the term in Scripture, however, is broader than a simple reference to information passed on from one person to another or from one generation to the next. Christianity is a religion founded on a message of good news rooted in the significance of the life of Jesus Christ. In Scripture, then, doctrine refers to the entire body of essential theological truths that define and describe that message (1 Tim 1:10; 4:16; 6:3; Titus 1:9). The message includes historical facts, such as those regarding the events of the life of Jesus Christ (1 Cor 11:23). But it is deeper than biographical facts alone. As J. Gresham Machen pointed out years ago, Jesus' death is an integral historical fact but it is not doctrine. Jesus' death for sins (1 Cor 15:3) is doctrine. Doctrine, then, is scriptural teaching on theological truths.

Doctrine is indispensable to Christianity. Christianity does not exist without it. The New Testament repeatedly emphasizes the value and importance of sound doctrine, sound instruction (1 Tim 6:3), and a pattern of sound teaching (2 Tim 1:13-14). The apostles defended the faithful proclamation of the gospel (Gal 1:8). They formulated Christian faith in doctrinal terms, then called for its preservation. They were adamant about the protection, appropriation, and propagation of doctrine because it contained the truth about Jesus Christ. Knowing the truth was and is the only way that a person can come to faith. So the apostles delivered a body of theological truth to the church (1 Cor 15:3). They encouraged believers to be faithful to that body of information they had heard and received in the beginning (1 John 2:7, 24, 26; 3:11), that "faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3). Believers, in general, were instructed to guard the faith, that is, to stand firm in sound doctrine (2 Tim 1:13-14). Pastors in particular were admonished to cleave to sound doctrine so that they could be good ministers of the gospel (1 Tim 4:6).

The use of the term "doctrine" in Scripture is important for at least three reasons. First, it affirms that the primitive church was confessional. The first generation of believers confessed apostolic teaching about the significance of the life of Christ. They delivered a body of information that included facts about Christ with interpretation of their importance. Second, the use of the term reflects development of thought in the primitive church. Didaskalia [didaskaliva] is used in the Pastorals with reference to the sum of teaching, especially of that which had come from the lips of the apostles. Doctrine plays a small role in Judaism and in the New Testament apart from the Pastoral Epistles, and yet is very important in the latter. By the time of the Pastorals the apostolic message had been transformed into traditional teaching. Third, it affirms the indispensable link between spirituality and doctrine. Christianity is a way of life founded on doctrine. Some disparage doctrine in favor of the spiritual life. Paul, however, taught that spiritual growth in Christ is dependent on faithfulness to sound doctrine, for its truth provides the means of growth (Col 2:6). The apostle John developed three tests for discerning authentic spirituality: believing right doctrine (1 Jo 2:18-27), obedience to right doctrine (2:28-3:10), and giving expression to right doctrine with love (2:7-11). Faithful obedience and love, then, are not alternatives to sound doctrine. They are the fruit of right doctrine as it works itself out in the believer's character and relationships.

Sam Hamstra, Jr.

Bibliography. J. G. Machen, Christianity and Liberalism; D. F. Wells, No Place For Truth: Or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology; TDNT, 2:160-63.
Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell
Copyright 1996 by Walter A. Elwell. Published by Baker Books, a division of
Baker Book House Company, PO Box 6287, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49516-6287.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/bed.cgi

Offline Beloved Servant

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 4290
  • David's sling
Re: UR
« Reply #7 on: July 14, 2009, 06:14:38 AM »
"Doctrine is indispensable to Christianity. Christianity does not exist without it. :"


That makes me cry and laugh at the same time.

The Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, needs NO MAN, NOR DOCTRINE, NOR RELIGION, or anything else to bring about the fullness of God.

It's despicable to even think that we can HELP.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2009, 06:19:25 AM by Beloved Servant »

Freedom_in_Christ

  • Guest
Re: UR
« Reply #8 on: July 14, 2009, 06:49:52 AM »
"Doctrine is indispensable to Christianity. Christianity does not exist without it. :"


That makes me cry and laugh at the same time.

The Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, needs NO MAN, NOR DOCTRINE, NOR RELIGION, or anything else to bring about the fullness of God.

It's despicable to even think that we can HELP.

That is taking in account the definition of doctrine given right above what you quoted.

"Doctrine, then, is scriptural teaching on theological truths."

The Word of God is theological truth. Doctrine is simply the teachings on that truth.
Not truth from man but truth from God.


Offline Beloved Servant

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 4290
  • David's sling
Re: UR
« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2009, 06:59:42 AM »
When it gets a label it's a man-made belief.
Though I post here; the term UR makes me cringe.

Offline micah7:9

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 5467
  • Gender: Male
  • Mic 7:8 Thou dost not rejoice over me, O mine ene
Re: UR
« Reply #10 on: July 14, 2009, 10:14:51 AM »
You all just scare me. I believed and still believe this site is based on Doctrine,
Paul spoke of one doctrine, thats a word of truth, perhaps misused today, and
for quite some time, but the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of Jesus, THE GOSPEL
is a doctrine; and when that doctrine is held to by the Spirit and Truth, I pray
that GOSPEL stands.
There is a point when one can feel that "doctrine" is in err, and it does, but keep
your eyes and ears on Truth, and you will be fine. Gospel is a/true DOCTRINE.
Peace and Love through Jesus
Mic 7:8  Thou dost not rejoice over me, O mine enemy, When I have fallen, I have risen, When I sit in darkness Jehovah is a light to me.

Offline jabcat

  • Admin
  • *
  • Posts: 8820
  • SINNER SAVED BY GRACE
Re: UR - Whether belief, creed, label, doctrine - truth in love
« Reply #11 on: July 14, 2009, 11:04:26 AM »
I think I understand the "heart" of the OP.  God's truth cannot be copyrighted, nor all His deeds fully contained in one book.  And if I apply a name to something He's said or done, it better be accurate and have His truth written all over it;  otherwise, I can make the Word of God of no effect by my traditions, and shut out anyone in condemnation and judgment that doesn't agree with my doctrines or creeds.

However, M7:9, no need for "you all" to be scary.  Not all think the same.  On the other hand, neither need we all shun any type of labels or doctrine.  In fact, IMO, it's impossible.  As Bob Dylan sang, you gott'a serve somebody.  We can't even communicate without labels, and any stated principle/position is a doctrine.  I haven't looked or thought it through, but "bet" I could go through and come up with a pretty good list of things Jesus labeled and/or presented as "doctrine".

PERSONALLY, I may not use all the definition shared from a Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology.  I agree with some of it, some of it I believe is overstated and has at least inklings of mainstream orthodoxy.  Again personally, I find the following definition to be more accurate, less loaded with orthodox dogma.   Doctrine; teaching, instruction;  something that is taught; a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief.  Even the "system of belief" part can give me pause, but I think it depends on what is the system and what is the belief that's really important.  If it's a system of belief of Nazi rule, then I think that's a problem.  If it's a system of belief that says "Jesus is God's Son, He did all the Father asked, and we are to learn what that is and follow in His footsteps", then I'd say that's exactly the system of belief we are to cling to, and some of the soundest doctrine there is.

Labels and definitions are part of our language.  Necessary.  Also though, hopefully used accurately, factually, correctly, truthfully.  I admit I've never fully understood the statement, but Paul taught us there's nothing evil of itself.  A label, or a doctrine, or a color, or an object - is.  It is what it is.  Good and bad can be descriptions, labels, judgments.  Holy is the truth, but it's also a name, a label. The truth can be a statement, a belief, a thought, a doctrine. 

As Martin said above, we are clearly told in scripture to contend for sound doctrine.  Not only is there nothing wrong with that, we're told to do it.  The following could be my creed;  I believe in Jesus Christ, He is the Son of God.  God will reconcile all to Himself, and He will be All in All.  Is that wrong, or do you believe it to be true as well?  If so, IMO, you believe in those sound doctrines (teaching, instruction;  a principle or position). 

We can often go too far one way or another.  I can become so labeled, "creeded" and denominationalized, that I fit everything into such a box as to have no room for further thought, freedom, or fellowship.  On the other hand, I can be so against labels, creeds, or groups that I have no room for further thought, freedom, or fellowship.  I can fall in a ditch on either side of the road, thus being unable to move out of my own confines of the way I think or view things.  And I can be just as wrong in saying "I can't stand Christians" as I can in saying "I am a Christian".  In the former frame of mind I can set myself up as a judge and be hyper-critical and condemning (done it);  the latter, I can go on crusades and kill people if they won't join my "church".  Words are important.  But it's not simply in the words I use. It's also in the spirit of the words, the accuracy of the words, whether they line up with THE Word;  and how I live those words - bottom line, if I love God with my whole heart and my neighbor as myself. 

If I do, then I can call myself a Christian, a believer, or a follower of Jesus.  I can say I believe in UR, the Victorious Gospel, Christian/Biblical Universalism, or simply that God will save all.  I can say my hair is brown, my eyes are blue, and my doctrines are to believe on Jesus, proclaim the Good News, lean not to your own understanding, love the Lord your God with all your heart and Him only serve.  None of these things are bad in and of themselves.  In fact, I would argue, none of them are bad at all, rather, they are exactly what we are to do.  Sound doctrines.  And my hair really is brown and my eyes blue.

Believe it or not, that's how I see it.  And whether you do or not, another doctrine I believe is that I am to love you and live peaceably with you as much as is possible.  :bigGrin:.

"...and it came to pass that they a whole year did assemble together in the assembly, and taught a great multitude, the disciples also were divinely called first in Antioch Christians."  Acts 11:26 (YLT)
« Last Edit: July 15, 2009, 04:59:33 AM by jabcat »
Neither should there be vulgar speech, foolish talk, or coarse jesting--all of which are out of character--but rather thanksgiving.  Eph. 5:4  **  Saved 1John 3.2, Eph. 2:8, John 1:12 - Being saved 2Cor. 4:16 2Peter 3:18 - Will be saved 1Peter 1:5 Romans 8:23

Freedom_in_Christ

  • Guest
Re: UR - Whether belief, creed, label, doctrine - truth in love
« Reply #12 on: July 15, 2009, 05:04:48 AM »

PERSONALLY, I may not use all the definition shared from a Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology.  I agree with some of it, some of it I believe is overstated and has at least inklings of mainstream orthodoxy.  Again personally, I find the following definition to be more accurate, less loaded with orthodox dogma.   Doctrine; teaching, instruction;  something that is taught; a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief.  Even the "system of belief" part can give me pause, but I think it depends on what is the system and what is the belief that's really important.  If it's a system of belief of Nazi rule, then I think that's a problem.  If it's a system of belief that says "Jesus is God's Son, He did all the Father asked, and we are to learn what that is and follow in His footsteps", then I'd say that's exactly the system of belief we are to cling to, and some of the soundest doctrine there is.



I like your definition better, simpler. I agree and I cling to the second one also. Good point about the words of men.
Thanks for sharing.

In Christ.

Offline jabcat

  • Admin
  • *
  • Posts: 8820
  • SINNER SAVED BY GRACE
Re: UR
« Reply #13 on: July 15, 2009, 05:21:57 AM »
Thank you brother.  I think we're pretty much on the same page.  Let's start a denomination now.  Just kidding :laughing7:

God's blessings to you and yours, James.
Neither should there be vulgar speech, foolish talk, or coarse jesting--all of which are out of character--but rather thanksgiving.  Eph. 5:4  **  Saved 1John 3.2, Eph. 2:8, John 1:12 - Being saved 2Cor. 4:16 2Peter 3:18 - Will be saved 1Peter 1:5 Romans 8:23

Offline Cardinal

  • < Moderator >
  • *
  • Posts: 8133
  • Gender: Female
Re: UR
« Reply #14 on: July 15, 2009, 06:08:24 AM »
Thank you brother.  I think we're pretty much on the same page.  Let's start a denomination now. 

 :cloud9:  :laughing7:
"I would rather train twenty men to pray, than a thousand to preach; A minister's highest mission ought to be to teach his people to pray." -H. MacGregor

Offline jabcat

  • Admin
  • *
  • Posts: 8820
  • SINNER SAVED BY GRACE
Re: UR
« Reply #15 on: July 15, 2009, 07:01:48 AM »
And what good church hierarchy can't use a Cardinal?    :Evilgrin:
Neither should there be vulgar speech, foolish talk, or coarse jesting--all of which are out of character--but rather thanksgiving.  Eph. 5:4  **  Saved 1John 3.2, Eph. 2:8, John 1:12 - Being saved 2Cor. 4:16 2Peter 3:18 - Will be saved 1Peter 1:5 Romans 8:23

Offline Cardinal

  • < Moderator >
  • *
  • Posts: 8133
  • Gender: Female
Re: UR
« Reply #16 on: July 15, 2009, 07:31:57 AM »
 :cloud9: roflol......... :laughing7:
"I would rather train twenty men to pray, than a thousand to preach; A minister's highest mission ought to be to teach his people to pray." -H. MacGregor