Every Wind of Doctrine?

What is this "every wind of doctrine" in reference to in Ephesians 4:14???

Ephesians 4:14 ESV so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.

What would the "every wind of doctrine" consist of?

In other words, do we find this happening even within our ranks, both here at Maritime, and in our churches???

One man's person's "theology" is another person's "every wind of doctrine."

Can you give me an example of that???

How much time do you have???
Just for starters, Nadi vs. dedication (and apparently everyone else) regarding the false and completely unsupportable "wind of doctrine" called the Investigative Judgement.

How many do you want? Every time two people disagree on doctrinal issues each thinks the other has a "wind of doctrine."

The REAL question is "Who has authority to interpret Scripture?" In other words: WHO says THIS is true, and THIS is false.?

This is a widespread problem, including at Maritime. If everyone posts whatever they wish, and there is no normative reference, then the discussion is ultimately meaningless.

The Bible and Spirit of Prophecy both talk about this sort of thing a lot. Here's a prominent SOP quote on the subject:

Sooo...What shall we use as a "normative reference" and who gets to decide that?

Extremely interesting question.

The quick answer of course is, the Bible. A prayerful, Spirit led, earnest study of the God's Word! It is the Word of Truth!

BUT does it really answer the question as every "wind of doctrine" tends to claim it's from the Bible?

Prophetic history and revelation does tell us what the popular answer will be in the future.

THE HISTORY AND PROPHECIED SOLUTION

For over 1000 years the Roman Catholic church, with the papacy at the head, claimed the role of being the normative reference and definer of Christian doctrine in all parts of the world where Christianity was the religion of the people.

Then 500 years ago Martin Luther cast off the authority of the Pope, and no longer acknowledged him as head of the Christian Church. Protestantism arose, protesting against the authority of their former head, and also against the doctrines and traditions of that Roman Catholic Church, declaring they would stand on SOLA SCRIPTURE. People were freed to worship God as they found truth in scripture.

BUT CONFUSION resulted, and many believe some confusion was intentionally generated to destroy the truths the protestants had found.

Christianity fragmented in many division, so now there's the plan to implement the "solution" which has been in progress for some years already. The unifying of the churches with ultimately the papacy being restored to his supposedly "rightful place" at the head of the church.

As one pope, Boniface VIII, wrote in his "Unam Sanctam " (and which is held up as an answer to the question you asked on websites)


The goal is to restore the papacy as the "head" and definer of truth.
Do I agree with that "solution"?
NO! NO!
It will be the end of religious freedom, and then we will see what REAL persecution means.

The real answer as to where we find truth, is still THE BIBLE.

Yet, notice in the paragraph above the misuse of a simple Bible reference, when the disciples had two swords with them in the garden of Gethsemane. Yes, Peter used a sword that night, but it was NOT a good thing, yet the popes uses this story to claim the Lord gave them the right to use force (swords) to keep society "Christian" according to their definition.

The Bible is the real "sword" of the spirit. The truth is in scripture.
But it must be sought with a prayerful, Spirit led, earnest study of God's Word!

A church is a group of believers who have come to the same conclusion from their Bible study as to what is true doctrine. A church will usually list the beliefs that are central to their church and why they believe them, and yes it does become a "normative reference".

It doesn't matter what the Bible says. It matters what YOU THINK the Bible says.

And everyone has to answer to God, whether they have sought truth with hearts open to His guiding, earnestly studying God's Word seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Who is promised to lead us to truth, or whether we simply followed the more popular generic versions that are put forth to bring ecumenical unity.

Here is an interesting video message, about an hour in length, at Spring Council in April of this year by Mark Finley that we watched and listened to attentively in church this morning regarding "every wind of doctrine" that I challenge everybody to view:

• The issue is a lot more complicated than how Mark Finley presents it. First, no SDA lives in a vacuum bereft of challenging ideas in this modern world of readily available and propositional multimedia. Unless the denomination wants to turn itself into a WACO-like cult holed up in some mountain range far away, or to foster a culture of serious mind-control, it has to accept that its membership is a body of free moral agents.
  
  Secondly, His argument is patently hypocritical too. Weren't SDA, in their early years, a movement of strange ideas based, as they liked to claim, on the Bible? Therefore, shouldn't they be grateful for open-mindedness, for the gracious listening ear of those who refused to be cowed into conformity to the previous orthodoxy? The very courtesy they wish of others, shouldn't they extend to those who hold different points of view?
   
• The message of the first Christian evangelists had little to do with how SDA have redefined the GOSPEL. That first message was a personal testimony of having walked and talked with, and learned of, Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God and Saviour of the World, who died, rose again, ascended on high, and will return for all those who would believe in Him as such. It's the simple idea that the beautiful, humble character of Christ should be reflected in "new creatures" through baptism as a sign of their return to God.
  
  Acts 2:38-39 says, "Then Peter said to them, Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."
   
  +++++++
   
• "Every wind of doctrine", therefore, are theological arguments layered on top of that Cornerstone of Christ which draw people away into divisions of denominational beliefs:
  
  1. Who is the Beast?
  2. Is the Trinity true?
  3. Which day is holy?
  4. Is Ellen White or Joseph Smith the last prophet?
  5. How do you interpret the seven churches?
  6. Is Mary a saint in heaven already?
  7. etc., etc., etc. ...
   
• The ticket to heaven is NOT a notarized certificate of church attendance, nor is it a diploma of competence in prophetic understanding. Jesus said, "I am THE Way, THE Truth and THE Life. No one comes to THE Father except through Me." Phil. 2:9-11 says, "Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
  
  Beyond that, the priceless theological heritage that is ours in the Bible makes for VERY interesting and lively discussions. May it be that we can allow ourselves and others the liberty of conscience that God has granted us; but in believing in Him, we find ourselves on the Last Day in heaven -- in light forevermore where all questions will find their final answer. "For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known."
  
  1 Corinthians 13
  
  ///

Is this the same "James Peterson" who just tore into JAK for expressing his view on the "Bible Questions & Answers / Facts That We Can All Agree With" discussion?
Just wondering, because you didn't cut him much room there...

I didn't "tear into him" but asked him if he planned on confronting God about choosing 12 persons (ALL MEN and no women) to be judges in heaven. As I said in the post above which you referencd, "... the priceless theological heritage that is ours in the Bible makes for VERY interesting and lively discussions."

If I had called for him to be banned because of his different point of view, or his post to be deleted because I disagreed with it, then I would have been guilty of duplicity. But it NEVER occurred to me to do such an immature thing. He neither swore nor was personally malicious in any way; but spoke rather well, though contrariwise. If he had done such things, then that would have been a different matter altogether.

///

Thank you for that clarification, because that was not the initial impression I got from the post.