Have you noticed that some ministries out there have come to idolize sound doctrine? Don’t get me wrong, sound doctrine is imperative for the Christian church (as Paul makes clear in both Titus and 1 and 2 Timothy); and without a doubt 
there is in fact a lack of sound doctrine being proclaimed from Christian pulpits all throughout America and the West (in fact there is a lack of any ‘Christian doctrine’ being proclaimed from American pulpits). Nevertheless, there are certain ministries, namely that of John MacArthur (don’t get me wrong, I think he says some good things too), which, in my estimation have placed such a premium on ‘sound doctrine’ that it has become idolatrous. What I mean is that Whom sound doctrine is supposed to be pointing to, and grounding us in; is being marginalized by the ‘doctrine’. There is no intimacy with Jesus being fostered by such approaches, and many things are done in the name of ‘sound doctrine’ (like splitting churches) that really aren’t reflective of whom ‘sound doctrine’ is supposedly pointing us to.
If sound doctrine comes before Jesus, in a way that actually points away from establishing and cultivating relationship with Him; then it’s really not ‘sound’ after all, and is really only an idol (like a ‘golden calf’). I think we need ‘sound doctrine’, but Biblically sound doctrine woos us further and deeper into relationship with the Saviour.
The Face Of Christ 
I think we need ‘sound doctrine’, but Biblically sound doctrine woos us further and deeper into relatioship with the Saviour.
THANK YOU!
I’ve had this same thought so many times while considering why Paul was so set on instructing particularly Timothy in this topic. Sound doctrine is meant to introduce people to Christ and encourage a closer relationship with Him.
It’s interesting to look at the Revelation letter to the church of Ephesus and note that it appears they had the very problem you’re addressing here.
I think the problem with ministries like MacArthur’s is that he has been hijacked by a tradition and approach to scripture that emphasize the intellect as the defining feature of their anthropology — i.e. another problem presented by following a Thomist trajectory.
What this illustrates, for me, is that MacArthur’s interpretive tradition is actually at odds with Scripture’s emphases; i.e. it fails at providing Scriptures central theme, and that is Jesus Christ in the sense that He discloses what God’s life “is,” which is LOVE (relationship)!
I agree Bobby,
In my early years as a christian,under a free-grace gospel, I was so zealous of that doctrine because other versions failed to lead me to Christ, that I began especially in college to cut myself off from christians of other traditions. By the time the test came, I had cut off the limb I was out on, and all of the life lines the Lord may have prepared for me. Down I went for about 3 years. I still prefer to fellowship with people who adhere to the simplicity of the Gospel, but the Lord has a very big family, and even some pretty legalistic, or charismatic folks can throw you a life line; even some pretty liberal ones I suppose, EVEN some determinists, but only because they were sovereignly appointed to ;).
We are Sponsoring a child in Haiti through Compassion Int’l. There is a wonderful social network website of sponsors from around the world. They come from the full range of evangelical traditions, and we love and care for one another, just like here. So, I wonder where is one to draw the line? Certainly belief in the Trinity is sine a qua non? I say, soli fide, soli Christe, soli Scriptura, soli Deo gloria; however, obviously there is a wider range of defintitions for “soli fide” than GES accepts. Narrow is the gate, because Jesus is that gate, but I believe He casts a very large net (to mix metaphors, kind of the architecture of the aquacultural sheepfold or sheepcote).
I hear commonly “as long as you love Jesus”. Well, I quess that narrows it down.
Bobby,
I think you have made a very important point here.
I believe it is central to the theme of 1 John as well.
I find it interesting to note how scripture actually identifies false teachers. It is more by what they do and how they act than what they teach. Don’t get me wrong, I am all the way opposed to false teaching and false doctrine as well, but I believe you can have sound doctrine and be a false teacher. You know them by their fruits.
Craig
Craig,
I recall the homework assignment you gave me concerning false teachers and their rotten fruit. I couldn’t help but laugh when God punctuated it by having one send me a little paper cross that I was supposed to wrap in a $20 and send back–so I could multiply God’s goodness and receive a blessing.
Guess it’s not really funny, though. We do need good teaching to counter the garbage that’s floating around so freely.
I know that there can be a problem with a heavily intellectual approach, though. It’s almost as though compassion and mercy get stuffed up on a dusty shelf because proving a point is more important.
Pingback: Dangers of Sound Doctrine?? « Just A Simple Guy
Hey everyone,
I’m glad this prompted some thought, I was hoping it wouldn’t come off too strong!
I think the essentials of Christianity is where we draw the line on Sound Doctrine — as far as fellowship. And that’s really the problem here. This really is a problem of attitude and perspective more than an issue of ‘doctrine’. But according to Paul in I Cor 13 w/o love it all means nothing. While truth is love, it involves sensitivity and compassion as well!
Pingback: Mind’s full. Had to unload a few thoughts. « The Narrow Gate