Controversial Biblical Teachings and the church

[Jacksnyte]

Why do some churches ignore controversial teachings in the Bible, such as speaking in tongues, baptism for the dead, the requirement for women to wear head coverings and to remain silent, the identification of the "sons of God" in Genesis 6, the necessity of poverty in order to follow Jesus (Luke 14:33), etc.? Doesn't the Holy Spirit reveal the true meaning of these passages to believers? If so, why do sincere believers come to opposite conclusions on their own, and why aren't they able to come to agreement when they dialog with each other? Surely, Jesus is with them to guide them when two or three are gathered together in his name, isn't he, even if they misapprehended the Spirit's guidance when they were on their own?

 

[Jacksnyte]

Well, I thought this would spark some discussion... :/

 

[emptybe]

Why do some churches ignore controversial teachings in the Bible, such as speaking in tongues, baptism for the dead, the requirement for women to wear head coverings and to remain silent, the identification of the "sons of God" in Genesis 6, the necessity of poverty in order to follow Jesus (Luke 14:33), etc.? Doesn't the Holy Spirit reveal the true meaning of these passages to believers? If so, why do sincere believers come to opposite conclusions on their own, and why aren't they able to come to agreement when they dialog with each other? Surely, Jesus is with them to guide them when two or three are gathered together in his name, isn't he, even if they misapprehended the Spirit's guidance when they were on their own?

Baptism for the dead is a Mormon thing.. I do not believe it is in the Bible. Speaking in tongues was literally speaking in foreign languages, to spread the Word. Head coverings for women is still practiced in Eastern Orthodox, but for everyone else they just say that was part of the times. The Sons of God are Angels.

 

[emptybe]

Some REAL controversial teachings that you should look into is Open Thiesm, Preterism, Believing Michael and Jesus are the same, etc.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Why do some churches ignore controversial teachings in the Bible, such as speaking in tongues, baptism for the dead, the requirement for women to wear head coverings and to remain silent, the identification of the "sons of God" in Genesis 6, the necessity of poverty in order to follow Jesus (Luke 14:33), etc.? Doesn't the Holy Spirit reveal the true meaning of these passages to believers? If so, why do sincere believers come to opposite conclusions on their own, and why aren't they able to come to agreement when they dialog with each other? Surely, Jesus is with them to guide them when two or three are gathered together in his name, isn't he, even if they misapprehended the Spirit's guidance when they were on their own?

A lot of Christians do practice these things.

 

[Skwim]

Jacksnyte

I assume you're wondering why other Christians don't believe exactly as you do, whatever that may be. If that's the case, then why do you think your beliefs are more correct than those of others?

 

[Jacksnyte]

Actually, no. I was a christian when I was a child, but I grew up to walk the Left Hand Path, so this has nothing to do with my beliefs. I am just curious about how people interperet their scriptures certain ways and why. I guess the question is aimed primarily at protestants within the US. Guess I should have clarified.

 

[javajo]

Its a way to try to discredit Christianity. By pointing out different beliefs within the large umbrella of "Christianity", and noting that Jesus or the Holy Spirit isn't right there interpreting the Word rightly for everyone, seems to only be trying to belittle Christianity. So it is of no use to answer the opening question point by point. People are human, limited and all different, with different backgrounds, cultures, traditions and levels of education and understanding of the Word. People misinterpret, misunderstand, take out of context, or may twist the Word to fit their beliefs instead of actually trying to understand what the author was really trying to say. There are core doctrines to the faith and there are less important doctrines. The Bible urges us to avoid foolish and unlearned questions and to love one another fervently and to avoid divisiveness. Unless they go so far out as to deny core doctrines and end up labeled as a cult, I would say just like choosing a flavor out of many at an ice cream shop, there are many flavors to choose within Christianity, different preferences in ways of worship, music, emphasis on certain ministries or doctrines, etc. But as with the flavors at the ice cream shop, though there are many different flavors, its all ice cream.

 

[Skwim]

Its a way to try to discredit Christianity. By pointing out different beliefs within the large umbrella of "Christianity", and noting that Jesus or the Holy Spirit isn't right there interpreting the Word rightly for everyone, seems to only be trying to belittle Christianity.

If it does discredit Christianity then who or what is to blame for its discreditably? It would be Christianity itself. If it doesn't, then no discredit has taken place.

So it is of no use to answer the opening question point by point.

Only if the accusations are true, otherwise I would think the believer would want to disabuse the writer of his mistake.

People are human, limited and all different, with different backgrounds, cultures, traditions and levels of education and understanding of the Word. People misinterpret, misunderstand, take out of context, or may twist the Word to fit their beliefs instead of actually trying to understand what the author was really trying to say.

Yup. So what?

There are core doctrines to the faith and there are less important doctrines.

Yup. So what?

The Bible urges us to avoid foolish and unlearned questions and to love one another fervently and to avoid divisiveness.

As Charles Steinmetz once said, and more than one teacher as reiterated, "There are no foolish questions and no man becomes a fool until he has stopped asking questions” I think Steinmetz wins this round.

Unless they go so far out as to deny core doctrines and end up labeled as a cult, I would say just like choosing a flavor out of many at an ice cream shop, there are many flavors to choose within Christianity, different preferences in ways of worship, music, emphasis on certain ministries or doctrines, etc. But as with the flavors at the ice cream shop, though there are many different flavors, its all ice cream.

So as long as core beliefs are adhered to, like

Biblical inerrancy,
The nature of Christ,
The nature of the Holy spirit,
Existence of angels and demons,
Immaculate conception,
Free will to do good,
Atonement,
The means of salvation,
Predestination,
Perseverance once saved,
End times,
Purgatory,
​

All of which are in dispute by various denominations.

 

[ninerbuff]

Its a way to try to discredit Christianity. By pointing out different beliefs within the large umbrella of "Christianity", and noting that Jesus or the Holy Spirit isn't right there interpreting the Word rightly for everyone, seems to only be trying to belittle Christianity. So it is of no use to answer the opening question point by point. People are human, limited and all different, with different backgrounds, cultures, traditions and levels of education and understanding of the Word. People misinterpret, misunderstand, take out of context, or may twist the Word to fit their beliefs instead of actually trying to understand what the author was really trying to say. There are core doctrines to the faith and there are less important doctrines. The Bible urges us to avoid foolish and unlearned questions and to love one another fervently and to avoid divisiveness. Unless they go so far out as to deny core doctrines and end up labeled as a cult, I would say just like choosing a flavor out of many at an ice cream shop, there are many flavors to choose within Christianity, different preferences in ways of worship, music, emphasis on certain ministries or doctrines, etc. But as with the flavors at the ice cream shop, though there are many different flavors, its all ice cream.

Seems like god's likes only vanilla. That's why jesus is depicted as a white man.

 

[emptybe]

Seems like god's likes only vanilla. That's why jesus is depicted as a white man.

What an extraneous and asinine comment.

 

[Muffled]

Why do some churches ignore controversial teachings in the Bible, such as speaking in tongues, baptism for the dead, the requirement for women to wear head coverings and to remain silent, the identification of the "sons of God" in Genesis 6, the necessity of poverty in order to follow Jesus (Luke 14:33), etc.? Doesn't the Holy Spirit reveal the true meaning of these passages to believers? If so, why do sincere believers come to opposite conclusions on their own, and why aren't they able to come to agreement when they dialog with each other? Surely, Jesus is with them to guide them when two or three are gathered together in his name, isn't he, even if they misapprehended the Spirit's guidance when they were on their own?

Controversy tends to divide people instead of uniting them. Church splits are all too common as it is.

Not every believer is in direct communication with Jesus. My expereience is that those who are not in direct contact go back to the scriptures and interpret those scriptures according to their own mindset.

This can be a difficult problem, when two or more people claim that Jesus has told them opposite things. This happened to me recently. When I asked Jesus about it in private, He told me that we were both right, that each point of view was correct in its correct context.

 

[Jacksnyte]

Bump:run:

 

[sojourner]

Why do some churches ignore controversial teachings in the Bible, such as speaking in tongues, baptism for the dead, the requirement for women to wear head coverings and to remain silent, the identification of the "sons of God" in Genesis 6, the necessity of poverty in order to follow Jesus (Luke 14:33), etc.? Doesn't the Holy Spirit reveal the true meaning of these passages to believers? If so, why do sincere believers come to opposite conclusions on their own, and why aren't they able to come to agreement when they dialog with each other? Surely, Jesus is with them to guide them when two or three are gathered together in his name, isn't he, even if they misapprehended the Spirit's guidance when they were on their own?

We don't ignore them, by and large. We just end up on different sides of the particular controversies. At some point, when things are vague, you just have to pick a camp and sit in it. That being said, that's absolutely no reason for intolerance.