Divorce question...specifics...

Doctrine: something that is taught

Doctrinal: of, relating to, or preoccupied with doctrine

 

Craig, the more specific definition is:

Doctrine: A teaching whose acceptance for belief is required.

Mary being a virgin at conception is doctrinal.
Jesus' divinity and messianic role are doctrinal.
Jesus' ressurrection is doctrinal.

What color Jesus' robe was is not doctrinal.

 

Whose definition is that???

 

And they continued stedfastly in the
apostles' doctrine KJV

And they continued stedfastly in the
apostles' teaching ASV

Doctrine = teaching.

DHK

 

Felluz, John is so very confused about such basic things as he mentioned. We must understand where he comes from when he posts nonsense.

 

Yet another clearly idiotic remark by DD, posted for no purpose except to belittle others. Of course, in doing so, he simply serves to belittle himself....

Now, back to the point, Craigbythesea, your definition of doctrine is a general one, though the dictionary considers your definition to be archaic. My definition is specific to that of religious and philosophical thought.

DHK, the issue of the definition of doctrine is really a side issue. Presuming you're correct, my point still stands:

Mary being a virgin at conception is a required teaching.
Jesus' divinity and messianic role are a required teaching.
Jesus' ressurrection is a required teaching.

What color Jesus' robe was is not a required teaching.

 

JohnV

Nice points - I agree!! Alot of people are scared to actually use their minds in studying the bible.

If it ain't the old tyme way it ain't raht (right).

 

I checked Webster’s Third New International Dictionary and it does not list your definition of doctrine, but it does list mine verbatim, and not as an archaic or obsolete definition. The only two archaic uses that it lists are: TEACHING, INSTRUCTION. The only two obsolete uses that it lists are: LEARNING, KNOWLEDGE. So I ask you again, “Whose definition are you using?”

 

Using their minds is all well and good unless they are using their minds when they should be using a good dictionary.

 

That's called SYI. Share Your Ignorance. Some people are great at that. Jesus addressed them in Matthew.

Mt. 22:29, "But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God."

 

The American Heritage Dictionary list the definition "Something taught" as an archaic defenition. It further defines doctrine as "a principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief" as by a religious group.
The Princeton University dictionary defines it as "a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative".

Anyhoo, the definition of the word is rather off-topic, and I didn't intend to hijack the thread in that manner.

Yes, good point. It was that thought process that insisted the world was not round, or that the sun revolved around the earth, or that it was okay to kill witches, or that women should be barred from voting, or that it was okay to own another person as property, etc.

 

1 Timothy 4:13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.

1 Timothy 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

 

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary is Merriam Webster’s flagship dictionary, and no other dictionary even comes close. While I was in graduate school studying linguistics, we studied English dictionaries and where the information in them comes from. Merriam-Webster dictionaries are unique in that rather than simply giving the opinions of a small group of editors, Merriam-Webster dictionaries are all based on the actual usage of prominent authors in their particular fields and the editors of major publications representing very many subjects, include the Bible and Christianity, as determined by a database containing millions of citations. Their research and database indicates that the use of the word doctrine for “something is taught” is a current and frequent use by prominent English speaking writers and editors. Their research and database does NOT indicate that your definition, “A teaching whose acceptance for belief is required,” is a current and frequent use by prominent English speaking writers and editors.

And neither the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language nor “The Princeton University dictionary” (which is really WordNet 2.0 and not a dictionary but “an online lexical reference system whose design is inspired by current psycholinguistic theories of human lexical memory”) lists your definition.

Merriam-Webster dictionaries are in a class all by themselves, and although Merriam-Webster is a registered trade mark, “Webster” is not, and hundreds of dictionaries have been published using that word in their title in order to capitalize on the reputation of Merriam-Webster dictionaries.

For the benefit of readers who believe the current psycholinguistic theories of human lexical memory, I am including below everything that WordNet 2.0 says about the word doctrine:

 

Dude, you're beating a dead horse. Again, getting back to the original point regarding doctrine/teaching:

Mary being a virgin at conception is a required teaching.
Jesus' divinity and messianic role are a required teaching.
Jesus' ressurrection is a required teaching.

What color Jesus' robe was is not a required teaching.

The divorce issue and scripture does not fit into the "Mary's virginity/Jesus' divinity" category. It fits into the "color of Jesus's robe" category.

 

False doctrines are based upon faulty premises. You posted an incorrect meaning for the word doctrine and based a doctrine upon your incorrect meaning. Correcting doctrinal errors is not equivalent to “beating a dead horse;” it is a vital Christian ministry.

 

This is one of the most manifestly false statements that I have ever seen in a post on the BB.

 

Jesus didn't think so. Paul didn't think so. Moses didn't think so. Jeremiah didn't think so. Malachi didn't think so. Isaiah didn'tr think so. All of them taught on divorce.

 

And neither does God, as evidenced above.

 

Doctrine is teaching. Even the color of Jesus robe is a study that can be researched and taught. Nothing in the Bible is that unimportant that it cannot be taught. The whole Bible is inspired of God--verbally and plenary.
John what are you doing is pointing out that some doctrines are more important than others. That is true. It is important to make sure people understand the doctrine of salvation, so that they can be saved. That is understandable. And those doctrines that directly relate to salvation are important.
The ceremonnial law is doctrine. It is teaching that we study and teach to our congregation for the benefit of all. No part of the Bible is without benefit even the color of the robe of Jesus. If you study the Revelation chapter one, the color of the robe of Jesus has great significance and much symbolic truth in it. It is a doctrine or teaching that should not be neglected. It is the fullest picture of Jesus that we have in the Bible. It is teaching; it is doctrine. It is part of the Bible. Paul said that he taught the "whole counsel of God." So should we.
DHK

 

The problem, DHK, is that we Christians commonly and frequently disagree about certain scriptural items, while others we cannot disagree upon. There is nothing wrong, sinful, or immoral about disagreeing over things such as the color of Jesus' robe, the day or hour which Jesus died, what exactly it said over Jesus' head on the cross, etc etc etc. However, we cannot disagree over things such as Mary's virginity, Jesus' divinity, etc, for the core of our relationship with Christ is tied directly to them.

In regards to the topic at hand, we disagree in regards to what the Bible teaches about divorce. For one to say that "only they" have the sole correct biblical teaching would be wrong. If I were to say that the Bible clearly allows divorce, and does not forbid marriage after a biblically allowed divorce, you would say I was guilty of false doctrine if you disagreed with me, even though my position is scripturally supportable? You can disagree with my interpretation, certainly, just as I can disagree with yours. But you cannot accuse me of adhering to a false doctrine any more than I can accuse you of adhering to false doctrine for adhering to a different interpretation.

If every single scriptural item were to be doctrinal, then every single baptist church would be guilty of at least one or two false doctrines, given that no two churches interpret scripture exacrly the same (something that is guaranteed by the Baptist dictinctives of soul liberty and autonomy).