Unimportant doctrines?

[Lamb]

Are there any doctrines from groups/denominations that call themselves Christian that hold to being crucial yet aren't important as viewed by other groups/denominations that are Christian?

 

[Josiah]

Are there any doctrines from groups/denominations that call themselves Christian that hold to being crucial yet aren't important as viewed by other groups/denominations that are Christian?

In my Catholic days, I DID wonder about some things the RC Denomination INSISTED were matters of highest importance possible, greatest necessity possible - de fide dogma (to knowingly deny is to be a heretic and "there are no heretics in heaven").... for example, the Assumption of Mary, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Actually, the STATUS of these things as most important/necessary POSSIBLE - bothered me more than the actual pov.



- Josiah

 

[Lamb]

Is there anything as a Lutheran that you're hearing in maybe a sermon and think, this isn't very important?

 

[Tigger]

Speaking in tongues as the initial sign of the in dwelling of the Holy Spirit just chaps my hide. :smashfreakb::taz:

 

[MoreCoffee]

I wonder if asking people to list what they dislike in other people's Christianity is a good idea.

 

[Lamb]

Oops wrong thread.

 

[Lamb]

I wonder if asking people to list what they dislike in other people's Christianity is a good idea.

Doesn't iron sharpen iron?

If someone is claiming that tithing 10% is an important doctrine to get someone to heaven, it should be okay to list it here as being unimportant.

Always point to the Savior my pastors have said.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Doesn't iron sharpen iron?

Not in this case, how is listing all the perceived faults one finds in another Christian's religion sharpening anything?

If someone is claiming that tithing 10% is an important doctrine to get someone to heaven, it should be okay to list it here as being unimportant.

Always point to the Savior my pastors have said.

I do not tithe to my parish I choose to give most of my giving to charities - usually Catholic charities. I don't feel any need to lecture other people on how bad their religion is if it teaches something different from my practise.

 

[Lamb]

Then you don't have to write anything here in the thread

There are doctrines that some churches hold that they think is uber important...yet it doesn't point to Christ.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Then you don't have to write anything here in the thread

There are doctrines that some churches hold that they think is uber important...yet it doesn't point to Christ.

Okay.

 

[Rens]

That He can only work on earth if His people invite Him by prayer. I think it's very important, but a lot don't agree on it.

 

[popsthebuilder]

That He can only work on earth if His people invite Him by prayer. I think it's very important, but a lot don't agree on it.

That's very interesting.

I recall sincerely praying once to GOD while I was an atheist. It was out of a realization that I was powerless to change.

I don't go so far as to say that it was a prerequisite to the gift of faith I received some time later, but I definatly think it had something to do with it.

Peace

 

[popsthebuilder]

I know of some who hold to a literal interpretation of the creation account; 6 24 hour days and all.

I personally don't find this to be pertinent to salivation, but to some, denying the literal interpretation of the 6 day creation account is too denying the crucifixion of the Christ. I still don't know how one leads to the other in their mind.

A similar doctrine which isn't really a doctrine per say is the refusal to admit that life changes over time in order to adapt better to its habitat.


While I'm at it; there seem to be very many that take the bible quite literally in all cases though it is very obviously not meant to be interpreted in solely literal materialistic ways.

No disrespect towards any who might hold to such views. If they do, then perhaps they can explain how they are needed for salvation, or to be considered a Christian.

Peace

 

[Rens]

I know of some who hold to a literal interpretation of the creation account; 6 24 hour days and all.

I personally don't find this to be pertinent to salivation, but to some, denying the literal interpretation of the 6 day creation account is too denying the crucifixion of the Christ. I still don't know how one leads to the other in their mind.

A similar doctrine which isn't really a doctrine per say is the refusal to admit that life changes over time in order to adapt better to its habitat.


While I'm at it; there seem to be very many that take the bible quite literally in all cases though it is very obviously not meant to be interpreted in solely literal materialistic ways.

No disrespect towards any who might hold to such views. If they do, then perhaps they can explain how they are needed for salvation, or to be considered a Christian.

Peace

I rather have someone believes gap or theistic evolution, although I think YEC is accurate, because it can be a stumble block. It has nothing to do with salvation and can keep people from getting saved.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I rather have someone believes gap or theistic evolution, although I think YEC is accurate, because it can be a stumble block. It has nothing to do with salvation and can keep people from getting saved.

I'm sorry, but I genuinely couldn't quite understand what you said. Could you rephrase it?

Thanks

 

[Josiah]

I know of some who hold to a literal interpretation of the creation account; 6 24 hour days and all.

I personally don't find this to be pertinent to salivation, but to some, denying the literal interpretation of the 6 day creation account is too denying the crucifixion of the Christ. I still don't know how one leads to the other in their mind.

A similar doctrine which isn't really a doctrine per say is the refusal to admit that life changes over time in order to adapt better to its habitat.


While I'm at it; there seem to be very many that take the bible quite literally in all cases though it is very obviously not meant to be interpreted in solely literal materialistic ways.

No disrespect towards any who might hold to such views. If they do, then perhaps they can explain how they are needed for salvation, or to be considered a Christian.

Peace

Pops,


I completely agree.

The theological "problem" is not with the "creation celebrations" (I think there are 2 different ones) in Genesis 1 and 2. IMO, where the "rub" tends to come is with Adam and Eve. That, IMO, is the much more difficult issue. On the one hand, many (maybe even most) Christians and Jews "see" that as metaphoric, allegory.... and personally, that makes a lot of sense to ME, if it were a "stand alone" thing I'd be apt to agree (I think MUCH of what is in the pre-Abraham stuff, Gen. 1 - 11, is of that nature). The PROBLEM is the New Testament, the epistles of St. Paul and much of the basis of orthodox Christian theology: much of it depends on this all be literally/historically true. IMO, it's difficult (although maybe not impossible) to accept Paul's theology but dismiss the account of the Fall as literally/historically true. And of course, that does impact the Creation celebrations.


Now, IMO, whether one embraces either of the two creation celebrations as metaphoric/theological or literal/historical/scientific is not a matter of doctrine (important or otherwise). I know people in my Lutheran parish on both sides of that - and we all seem to embrace each other fully.



- Josiah

 

[Rens]

I'm sorry, but I genuinely couldn't quite understand what you said. Could you rephrase it?

Thanks

This is what someone says who believes GAP theory, but I also think it counts for theistic evolution.
I personally think YEC is true.

The “Gap theory” (or better termed, “Gap Principle”) is NOT a fundamental doctrine of the faith. Nevertheless I am increasingly convinced that it is a matter that needs to be addressed. Many unsaved people with college degrees will not listen to an ignorant believer who claims that dinosaurs roamed the earth 4,500 years ago.

So I rather have they accept Jesus and believe theistic evolution, GAP or whatever than trying to convince an educated atheist that YEC is true. It's not a salvation issue anyway. It might keep him from getting to know God.

 

[popsthebuilder]

This is what someone says who believes GAP theory, but I also think it counts for theistic evolution.
I personally think YEC is true.

The “Gap theory” (or better termed, “Gap Principle”) is NOT a fundamental doctrine of the faith. Nevertheless I am increasingly convinced that it is a matter that needs to be addressed. Many unsaved people with college degrees will not listen to an ignorant believer who claims that dinosaurs roamed the earth 4,500 years ago.

So I rather have they accept Jesus and believe theistic evolution, GAP or whatever than trying to convince an educated atheist that YEC is true. It's not a salvation issue anyway. It might keep him from getting to know God.

Thank you for clarifying.

Peace

 

[popsthebuilder]

Pops,


I completely agree.

The theological "problem" is not with the "creation celebrations" (I think there are 2 different ones) in Genesis 1 and 2. IMO, where the "rub" tends to come is with Adam and Eve. That, IMO, is the much more difficult issue. On the one hand, many (maybe even most) Christians and Jews "see" that as metaphoric, allegory.... and personally, that makes a lot of sense to ME, if it were a "stand alone" thing I'd be apt to agree (I think MUCH of what is in the pre-Abraham stuff, Gen. 1 - 11, is of that nature). The PROBLEM is the New Testament, the epistles of St. Paul and much of the basis of orthodox Christian theology: much of it depends on this all be literally/historically true. IMO, it's difficult (although maybe not impossible) to accept Paul's theology but dismiss the account of the Fall as literally/historically true. And of course, that does impact the Creation celebrations.


Now, IMO, whether one embraces either of the two creation celebrations as metaphoric/theological or literal/historical/scientific is not a matter of doctrine (important or otherwise). I know people in my Lutheran parish on both sides of that - and we all seem to embrace each other fully.



- Josiah

Though it may not be doctrine per say some do consider it such. You say your brothers in your church congregation vary in views yet embrace one another fully....if only this could span past ones one denomination, then we might be on to something.

Please don't excuse this as universal acceptance of all things because it most assuredly is not.



Weirding me out with all this agreement stuff.

Calm down....jokes.


Peace friend

 

[visionary]

eternal Virgin Mary.. unimportant doctrine.