One defines tolerance based upon what they have been taught and indoctrinated to be tolerant of. The Pharisees had incredible intolerance but it was due in large part ot being raised and trained in a system that promoted exclusivity in the name of a relationship with God. They had the right God but the wrong approach. When the approach is wrong the relationship with God will never stay right.
Even the most rigid of standards need some tolerance built into them. Doctrine is not a standard. It is a doctrine. Doctrines need not allow for tolerance because they come from God and are set for time and eternity. Lifestyle, practice and interraction really do not rise to the level of doctrine per se, and therefore need tolerances built into them.
Engineers have what they call "acceptable tolerances" built into what they design and manufacture. So long as the tolerance does not endanger the safety of the consumer then it is an acceptable tolerance. So, redefining our tolerances is a good thing. So long as the difference does not endanger the spiritual well-being of the believer then I have a good bit of room for tolerance. But if our differences affect eternity, then the tolerance has left it's acceptable level and I move on for the sake of safety.
POST OF THE YEAR
(I know it's only 8 days into the year but this kind of post is the reason we need RRFord posting here!)
One defines tolerance based upon what they have been taught and indoctrinated to be tolerant of. The Pharisees had incredible intolerance but it was due in large part ot being raised and trained in a system that promoted exclusivity in the name of a relationship with God. They had the right God but the wrong approach. When the approach is wrong the relationship with God will never stay right.
Even the most rigid of standards need some tolerance built into them. Doctrine is not a standard. It is a doctrine. Doctrines need not allow for tolerance because they come from God and are set for time and eternity. Lifestyle, practice and interraction really do not rise to the level of doctrine per se, and therefore need tolerances built into them.
Engineers have what they call "acceptable tolerances" built into what they design and manufacture. So long as the tolerance does not endanger the safety of the consumer then it is an acceptable tolerance. So, redefining our tolerances is a good thing. So long as the difference does not endanger the spiritual well-being of the believer then I have a good bit of room for tolerance. But if our differences affect eternity, then the tolerance has left it's acceptable level and I move on for the sake of safety.
Good thoughts there RRFORD!
I think many get confused with the line between doctrine and standard, personal convictions and corporate tolerances.
Would you agree that standards are not necessarily salvationial, but doctrine is?
A body of believers should have individual personal convictions while tolerating others convictions that don't match up as long as it doesn't oppose sound scriptural doctrine.
The Church is not the Church without the Blood, the Water, and The Word. And they all are encompassed in that matchless name of Jesus the Christ. There is no salvation in any other and no other name under heaven that can save us.
I consider myself to live in moderation. Don't want to be extreme to either side of the "political' church spectrum. I like to give a lot of leeway in dealing with others as that is how I want others to deal with me.
__________________
Psa 119:165 (KJV) 165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.
"Do not believe everthing you read on the internet" - Abe Lincoln
One defines tolerance based upon what they have been taught and indoctrinated to be tolerant of. The Pharisees had incredible intolerance but it was due in large part ot being raised and trained in a system that promoted exclusivity in the name of a relationship with God. They had the right God but the wrong approach. When the approach is wrong the relationship with God will never stay right.
Even the most rigid of standards need some tolerance built into them. Doctrine is not a standard. It is a doctrine. Doctrines need not allow for tolerance because they come from God and are set for time and eternity. Lifestyle, practice and interraction really do not rise to the level of doctrine per se, and therefore need tolerances built into them.
Engineers have what they call "acceptable tolerances" built into what they design and manufacture. So long as the tolerance does not endanger the safety of the consumer then it is an acceptable tolerance. So, redefining our tolerances is a good thing. So long as the difference does not endanger the spiritual well-being of the believer then I have a good bit of room for tolerance. But if our differences affect eternity, then the tolerance has left it's acceptable level and I move on for the sake of safety.
Today's Verse of The Day-
My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not. Proverbs 1:10
How do YOU intrepret it?
(not direct to RRFord, who I am glad to see post here again- meant for anyone still interested in fair balanced posting with no agendas)
__________________
I am not a member here -Do not PM me please?
I have friends who are Baptist. We just try not to discuss doctrine cuz we start yelling and talking over each other lol
So, i can be friends and believe a different doctrine.
I think the Cons are more aggressive by nature. libs usually have more laid back personalities. cons are black and white
__________________ "all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
~Declaration of Independence
I am probably never mistaken for a 'con', but I don't know any 'lib' that walks around preaching with hand in pocket and without passion or fire (my words as interpreted)
Hybrid Mode
