All Comments for: Doctrine Bears Repeating | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2009 > April

Christianity Today, April, 2009 |

Doctrine Bears Repeating

Evangelicals need to brush up on basic Christian teachings.

Charles Colson with Anne Morse | posted 3/24/2009 10:16AM

Listen to Charles Colson read his column.

"We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." Written in 1939, George Orwell's words might well be addressed ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 67 comments.

Page: 1 2 3

Show All

Andrew J Morgan

Posted: April 06, 2009 10:43 PM

Scoff at your own risk! Something deep down inside me tells me that Jesus of Nazareth is "THE Christ", Jehovah incarnate if you will. It is one thing to hear ABOUT Jesus... it is quite another to have a viable relationship with Him. I have proved Him over and over via two way relationship throughout my life. Yahweh's way of meeting us ( us meaning humanity ) at our own mentality of sacrificing living blood for salvation. I like how you stated all that Wayne. I can hardly wait to meet you behind the gates! Oh, did I mention the unspeakable joy He fills me with daily and engulfs me with a peace that passes understanding?..... I came from in-comprehensible demoralization during the era of my life just prior to that real and living relationship He developed with me. I did not find Him, He, hahahhahaha, He found me!

Ifeanyi

Posted: April 04, 2009 11:53 AM


I was thinking of what article to put up in my church )Anglican) bulletin. This article has decided me. It has also shown me what we must continue to do from the pulpit. Thank you Charles

Doug Lass

Posted: April 03, 2009 11:58 PM

I personally feel that having doctrine in place is somewhat important, but when JC Shakes claims that interpreting "doctrine" requires that some sections of the Bible takes precedence over others is going way too far. Like the matter of getting to Heaven requires only accepting Jesus Christ is the one and only way to get to heaven! How many Times in the Gospels did Jesus tell everyone must take care of widows and orphans, the poor, the homeless and those that are hungry and thirsty? Several times! And to me these Christians that believe that faith alone is the only way to heaven cannot be called true Christians!!! They are more like Pharisees who profess loudly in public how good of a "Christian" they are. They also talk about how every single letter is God's own word and then they leave out parts of it they don't like because they say it is not the "true" way to heaven! Either take every word of the Bible for the truth that you say it is or leave the being a Christian off your bio!!!

Wayne

Posted: March 31, 2009 4:22 PM

As evidenced by other comments here, the human intellect remains the ultimate idol that prevents true submission to the truth and Lordship of Jesus the Christ. I would prefer to offend nonbelievers than to offend Yahweh. How sad that we tremble in political correctness or at the possibility of being perceived as "less intelligent" but refuse to acknowledge how awful it is to fall into the hand of an angry God. It seems profoundly obvious that if I do not accept the sacrifice offered by Yahweh, He will accept me in my utter depravity which lies at the core of all human nature. Enter into heaven other than through God's only begotten son? Not a chance.

Chris

Posted: March 30, 2009 8:12 PM

Knowing more doctrine can be hazardous to your spiritual health...if you haven't acted upon that which you already know. We American Christians know more than the early Christians are a pathetic imitation of their devotion to following Jesus. Neil Cole calls this "Being Educated Beyond Our Obedience" I call it what Jesus did: foolishness. I have more to say: http://duodigest.blogspot.com/2009/03/being-educated-beyond-our-obedience.h tml

Rich D

Posted: March 30, 2009 6:25 PM

I am surprised by the language used in the paragraph on Mars Hill - did Paul primarily confront and challenge? What does this say of his attitude? There's no doubt a challenge lay in his message, but it seems his approach included assessment of their current situation and using familiar concepts like their own poets. Something akin to the missiological idea of "redemptive analogy." Broadly speaking - looking for what can be affirmed and used as a bridge to Christ. I think an important question for us all is: Where lies the challenge for people? In our assessment of what 'they' do, or in the journey with Christ himself (where they are called to follow and sacrifice)? Everything we say communicates beyond just our words. What do we want to communicate most?

Rich W

Posted: March 28, 2009 7:07 AM

As I was reading this, and agreeing very much, my mind thought about who was writing. Isn't this the man that has tried to bring together Evangelicals and Catholocism? I googled a bit and have found no where where Colson has "repented" of those efforts, which contradict what he is writing about. When he wrote about the "Father, Mother and Son, I thought he was referring to the RCC. That statement would fit their theology, which is very contradictory to scripture. Trying to be careful, I continue to Google and found on his site an article on unity. (www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=8377). Check it out! I just don't understand how Colson can honestly write this article on doctrine yet continue to forsake Biblical doctrine for the cause of "unity of the spirit and church"? Am I missing something here?

Jim	Posted: March 27, 2009 12:34 PM


I have to comment on the poll about people going to heaven who practice other religions. No religion will get one to heaven, only Jesus! Whatever one calls their religion, when one calls on Jesus, he, and he alone, saves.

Stephen

Posted: March 27, 2009 7:29 AM

Good article. We must stand for the historic Christian faith (doctrine)once delivered by Christ through the Apostles (and codified in Scripture) to the Church, there is no other message that saves condemned sinners from the wrath of a holy God (Jude 3, I Cor 15:1-4, Rom chap 3). We need backbone to stand for and speak forthrightly the truth in this comproming age, may God grant us steel in our bones to do this so that our legacy may not be of wimps who watered down and changed His message or who or in cowardness or indifference failed to communicate the gospel it to others.

Bob	Posted: March 26, 2009 9:32 PM


Having listened to Billy and Rick make outrageous statements on Universalism and "try Jesus for 90 days I will stick with my Bible and Creeds. Where are the Martin Luther and John Calvin of this era?

Trierr

Posted: March 26, 2009 7:58 PM


I agree completely that doctrine matters, but the question is "whose doctrine?" Is it the traditional doctrines affirmed at Nicea and Calcedon? Or is it that affirmed in the Fundamentals from last century? Or is it something in between? Can't tell from the article, yet it makes a huge difference.

Peter

Posted: March 26, 2009 2:17 PM

I would argue that certain key doctrines of the Christian faith are more faith claims than truth claims, each is binding upon the trajectory of our lives, but in a different way. Gravity, even though we don't know how it works, is a truth claim. The Resurrection, strictly speaking, stands outside history, certainly the significance of it stands outside history, the world of "facts" (my guess is that Mr. Colson would collapse facts and truth, as do many modernist thinkers). One other thing, if we are indeed saved by the grace of a sovereign God, then of course one outside the boundaries of Christianity can be saved, as was the case with the first Christians -- when there was no Christianity. What's important for Christians is to live according to the grace revealed in our Lord, and not try to recreate grace in our own image.

Johann

Posted: March 26, 2009 11:17 AM


How can Protestants even speak of "doctrine" with a straight face? You people can't agree on anything. Your "doctrine" is based on your human interpretations of a book. No Protestant, as far as I know, claims divine infallibility for his interpretations, as does the Catholic Church. So how on earth could you have doctrines? All your faith is based on is opinions.

Faye	Posted: March 26, 2009 12:45 AM


Thank God for people like Charles Colson who will remind us of who we are and what we were born to do. Yes Danny, it is by grace through faith, but if you would walk worthy of bearing the name of Christ, your faith will encompass the Scripture and its teaching. Did not our Savior say, "I am the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE? Or is it Buddha or Mary or Allah?

Mike R

Posted: March 25, 2009 10:28 PM


After seeing how many of my Catholic friends conduct themselves that church will never beckon to me.

Sherif

Posted: March 25, 2009 10:18 PM

Being an Egyptian Christian, I was deeply offended at the mis-informed bashing of a presumed "heresy" by my ancestors. The truth is that the doctrine of the trinity has always caused a problem to Moslems -by the way, we don't call Holy Spirit "mother". Coptic Christians in general are still being called "infidels" by moslems for believing in the Trinity and in the divinity of Jesus Christ. The 7th Century did not witness a heresy but a conquest of my country by the Islamic army. We don't ask Mr. Colson to recognize our spilled blood for Christ since the first Century, under the Romans, up to this day, but Mr. Colson owes us an apology at the same space where he insulted us, in accordance with proper reporting ethics.

Bill from Denver

Posted: March 25, 2009 6:24 PM

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast. For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them.” Ephesians 2:8-9-10. But, we have free will and don’t have to open/unwrap the gift God gives us. Many people never accept or unwrap God’s gift of faith. I pray you will not make that mistake.

Dawn	Posted: March 25, 2009 2:03 PM

Thanks, Chuck, for not backing away from 'speaking the truth in love.' When I was a young believer, 30 years ago, there was no doubt that my church stood on the historical ground of God's revealed word in the Bible. People loved theology, they studied it, they could communicate it. Sadly, as you've pointed out, this is not nearly so much the case anymore. Many church members believe theology is for the 'professionals' and they don't need to concern themselves with much more than their own (and their family's) salvation. In many ways, it seems, the Light is being hidden under a bushel...

JC Shakes

Posted: March 25, 2009 1:55 PM

How beautifully ironic that Charles Colson uses a quote from atheist George Orwell, who railed against any sort of ideological rigidity, to start off an article on the need to return to the foundation of “doctrine.” Human understanding of the relationship between man and God evolved from the Old Testament to the New – so has our understanding of this relationship been frozen in time 2000 years ago, or has it changed today? Our understanding of our relationship with God continues to evolve as our knowledge, understanding, and consciousness continue to expand. Claiming that the TRUTH is written in stone somewhere, and that it requires no understanding or interpretation is absurd. Interpreting “doctrine” requires that some sections of the Bible are given precedence over others. It takes human interpretation to do that. And if an intellectual lightweight like Colson is telling us he knows what the “obvious truths” of that doctrine are, I for one am skeptical at best, and fearful at worst.

Dave N.

Posted: March 25, 2009 1:20 PM

First, the most startling quote of the article: "Personal faith is of course vital, but it is not sufficient." Second, as usual, Colson (or Morse, I'm not sure) starts off well (a call for biblical literacy) but is quickly derailed by an attack on "doctrinal ignorance" which isn't exactly the same thing, and sometimes not even close to the same thing. The Bible for Colson is always at the service of Evangelical "orthodoxy" (whatever that is--though a favorite touchstone of Colson) rather than the other way around.

fredinomaha

Posted: March 25, 2009 1:00 PM

Ah, much more like the Chuck Colson of old, before he confused good doctrine with support of right wing causes and changed his position on capital punishemnt under the pressure of same allies. Amen, Bro Chuck! We are a historical church and we are a doctinally illiterate Christendom, today. Although, his good friend, Richard John Neuhouse in Death on a Friday Afternoon, came very close to universalism, acknowledging there is a hell, but we could pray that someday it will be empty and asking if it was God's will that none should perish (multiple texts) when has God's purposes and will not been accomplished? Some mysteries are beyond good doctrine and await that time when we shall see clearly.

Mark M

Posted: March 25, 2009 12:58 PM

SteveP, You bring up an excellent point. It is very true that the nature of the Evangelical beast defies doctrinal definition. Until brave leaders and laypeople take the initiative to bring the distinctives of the Christian faith to the forefront and make them clearer and more defined, there will always be problems of heresy and spiritual illiteracy in the Evangelical movement. It's also true what someone else said, that there is much emphasis put on everyone's personal experience over propositional facts. All this adds up to an environment where doctrine is put on the back burner. Also, to those who say that it's more about how you live... consider this statement: sound doctrine leads to sound living.

Sherwood MacRae

Posted: March 25, 2009 11:53 AM

After reading the article, I was reminded of the old adage, "The good is often the enemy of the best." I was also reminded of the scripture that teaches, "...they overcame him (the accuser of the brethren) because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony..." (Rev. 12:11) I understand Christian doctrine, but it has been more often used to support the beliefs of some that their church is "right" and all others are wrong. I like to remind folks that Jesus came, hailed as the "Prince of Peace" and once we can grasp this truth, we can proceed with our discussion of other doctrines; He did not come to have us debating with one another, as was the practice of the Scribes and Pharisees, who He denounced on numerous occasions.

Dorothy

Posted: March 25, 2009 11:12 AM

Since God gave us America "Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492); God is our King: God gave us America to be of the people, by the people for the people under His Kingdom did we want to join the world system customs and live by its customs and forsake the way of our King and His Bible with everything pertaining to life and godliness 2 Pete 1:1-15" abdicate our positions under the reign and authority of The King God Almighty we began to choose and elect government leaders that are of the kind of customs chose to live by . and "leave the driving / governing up to our worldly leaders .... and "O my goodness, is this what we American Christians have done... as the Jews did in 1 Samuel chapter 8???? Did we demand a king, as in 1 Sam 8

Steve Adams

Posted: March 25, 2009 11:11 AM

Chuck's words are well worth heeding for sure. I find it ironic that this weeks issue of Connections newsletter, also from Christianity Today of course, contains a reveiw of 'The Shack' by Gordon MacDonald. I usually appreciate his writing but he misses the point on that one. 'The Shack' has some things to commend it but it is a subtle undermining of some very key doctrines including the authority of Scripture. Chuck, can you talk to Gordon?

Page: 1 2 3

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment