Great Life Applications

[ITS]

Paul's lengthy doctrinal sections contain great life applications. How can our teaching of doctrine accomplish the same result?

[paul@kdcag.com]

Paul's lengthy doctrinal sections contain great life applications. How can our teaching of doctrine accomplish the same result?

I don't believe that the culture today can be reached by the Church if they simply talking about doctrine without understanding the culture of the person or group they are trying to impact. However, if we investigate Paul's strategies, we can see that the doctrine he was discussing was communicated using strategies to enable him to impact their culture with a new message (transform), versus trying to transfer his culture or language onto them.

Today, we can accomplish the same thing by explaining truths ( or doctrine if you will) using the metaphors and situations of the person we are trying to impact with the Gospel. We need to use these sayings or situations to describe the Gospel. We do much damage when using the lingo and situation that are common in the Church, and not use the language and cultural situations of the person we are trying to reach. This "transform versus transfer" issue on culture is key to Paul's approach. While he was able to connect with a very different culture, he was still able to "communicate" the truth of the Gospel so they could "hear".

[melchis1]

We have a responsibility to interpret within context and then to apply in our present day. Preserving the heart of what was meant by the author while also comparing and contrasting what the author says against other thoughts and writings of the author. For example, Paul only spoke to issues that spoke to him. He answered specific questions and then embellished in issues where he knew something about the problems that the church was facing. Even the church of that day had to interpret Paul?s writing filtering it through their lenses or the lenses of the persons who carried the information to Paul. Even in my own job when I receive information from employees I must consider the bearer of the news. How the information was presented to me and where the issue began. We are people and as long as we are people we will always either purposely or inadvertently put our spin on information. And as long as this is true we will need those to interpret and present what we think the author might have intended for not only his audience but for our audience as well.

Paul also spoke in many different places. If you consider that the newest freshman has probably written more volumes of work than Paul did in their first year of college. We must consider that Paul did not have the tools at his disposal in the first century that we do in the 21st century. How much more would we have today if Paul had what we have today to write and record with. We must not only consider what Paul has said but we must consider what Paul did not say. What did he imply what would he imply.

When John wrote about Paul he recognized the greatness of what was unfolding and he worked feverishly to capture what he could for future generations. But we know that the book of Acts could in no way capture all that Paul did or even the highlights of his three missionary journey?s. So we extrapolate and contrast from what we know of Paul and what we know of the society that he lived him to better understand him. How much more should we not also continue the work of contextualizing what he wrote so many years ago so that today?s generation might better understand him.

[melchis1]

This post is in reply to paul@kdcag.com

I whole hearted agree with his statement that church can not reach the people of today by simply talking about doctrine. We have to know doctrine and then integrate it into society. I believe that he is correct when he states that we must use Paul's strategies when trying to integrate our message into society.

However I do not agree with his assumption that Paul might have been able to influence cultures other than his own. If we study Paul closely we will see that Paul's life as a Pharisee and his study of the Law gave him a special ability to interpret the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. This was based upon his rabbinical teaching. He was centered in this not culturally diverse. I believe that it was not necessarily Paul's ability to integrate with other cultures that made him so successful but Rome?s ability to conquer and tie many different peoples together. Although the Roman Empire persecuted Christianity it was also the infrastructure or delivery system by which the gospel spread. It was the roads built by the empire, the nations conquered and bound together by a common language which was forced by the Roman Empire. The life and death of Jesus Christ and the life and times of Paul could not have come at a more opportune time
.

[SEikenberry]

This particular question belongs on the reply to Paul@kdcag.com

[SEikenberry]

By Sylvia Eikenberry, Assemblies of God Theological Seminary

Paul?s lengthy doctrinal sections contain great life applications. How can our teaching of doctrine accomplish the same result?

According to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, the word doctrine usually means ?to teach? or ?what is taught.? Jesus referred to a doctrine as did Paul. Doctrine would have been seen as a body of beliefs about Jesus Christ. The apostles were teaching several main things about Jesus Christ ? that He was the Christ, that he came to earth to die for men?s sins, and that He was raised from the grave, and had a plan of redemption for man if they would believe on His name. Christianity was brand new and people needed to know exactly what they believed. Paul began sharing his gospel with the Jews in the context of Jewish history as in Galatians. Later he also integrated this with more of a world view as in Romans.

We are fortunate that people in the First Century began to collect Paul?s letters and to save them. His epistles (especially the book of Romans) provided a manual on how to live the Christian life. Paul?s life did not consist of sitting around only to write letters. Letter writing had to fit into his busy life of traveling, preaching, working with the new churches, and, of course, making tents! As a new situation would arise among members of a new Christian church, he would write to the particular church to address the issue, often explaining his doctrine on it. The types of issues he had to address included how Christian leaders should behave, celibacy, food, spiritual warfare, treatment of widows, favoritism, circumcision, and the purpose of the law. But his main emphasis in putting forth his doctrine would have been the 3 main points shared earlier ? the deity of Jesus Christ, his death and resurrection, and God?s plan for redemption.

For example, in his epistle written to the Galatians, Paul begins to tackle the subject of why the Judaizers are following a false gospel, ?which is no gospel at all.? He wants them to hear his testimony how he, a Pharisee and persecutor of the Christians, encountered Jesus Christ in a dramatic conversion experience. Paul turned around completely in his actions and beliefs. Yet, he remains humble and calls himself the ?least of the brethren.? As he explains his doctrine of the law to the Galatians, he uses metaphors from their cultural context. He is transparent towards the end of his life, expressing his needs. Paul is not afraid to show his anger when it was necessary. He disagrees with some of his fellow workers such as John Mark. But there is no doubt that he is willing to serve the church, absolutely putting every effort into teaching new Christians how to follow Christ. Indeed, Paul told them that they could imitate him.

By the time the Pastoral Epistles were written, Christians were assembling a core of beliefs which Paul referred to as sound doctrine.

1 Tim 1:10-11 "for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers ? and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.? NIV

Modern day preachers of the gospel need to teach doctrine. They need to have courage to attack issues that come up all the time ? homosexuality, divorce, remarriage, drinking alcohol, rules of conduct for young people in the church, to name a few. But most of all, they need to set down in front of their church members a core of beliefs that Christians can grab hold of and say, ?Yes, this is what I believe!? They need to know the big things that are important, and then the smaller issues will fall into place. There are many preachers today that choose to avoid confronting their congregation with doctrinal issues, choosing rather to give a message that is never condemning. But so much evil is going on that unless issues are confronted by God?s messengers of the gospel; the testimony of the church is watered down.

When a preacher handles the issues of doctrine, he needs to do so from a life of integrity. If he led a life of sin before, then there needs to have been a dramatic conversion experience. He needs to always have scripture backing for the particular issue being addressed. He needs to consider cultural context of the issue and use his words carefully, attacking the issue or sin and never the people. Metaphors or word pictures can be used to explain the issue. Above all, rather than having people feel that they have to follow a certain doctrine in the spirit of ?obeying the law?, doctrine should be taught in a way that will best emphasize that a Christian needs to live a holy life, not by trying to obey a law, but out of love for Jesus and what he did for us?never because one is forced to. As Paul tells Titus, ?Holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and convict those who contradict.? Titus 1:9

[SEikenberry]

Sylvia Eikenberry, Assemblies of God Theological Seminary



The author of this question did an excellent job in explaining various ways that the apostle Paul would get the job done of teaching his doctrine to the new Christians in the various churches he was addressing. He said that Paul used metaphors and was able to communicate the truth of the Gospel so they could understand, but he also spoke in many places so perhaps this could not be accomplished completely. He was also bringing out the point that Paul may have said and done so many things, that only a fraction of them are written about in the Bible.

My feeling is that the world is extremely more diverse and complicated culturally speaking than in Paul?s day. More languages exist and more people groups, making the explanation of doctrine even more complicated for today?s evangelists and preachers than it was in Paul?s day. I agree with this author that those taking the message to different people groups need to really understand their culture and language before trying to interpret doctrine. What does one do with a Christian convert who has 4 wives? Does he put away 3 of them? Should he be allowed to be a member of a church? What will happen to the destitute, divorced women?

Communication has exploded so much that Christians have to be careful what they post on the web. Several years ago, some non-Christians were surfing the web and came across offensive material that was written there about their religion. They were so angry that they took it out on a missionary and his son, burning them to death in their van.

Keeping up with cultural changes is a challenge to all called upon to preach the gospel and to teach their congregations appropriate doctrine. May God help those who are called to continue this difficult task.



Paul's lengthy doctrinal sections contain great life applications. How can our teaching of doctrine accomplish the same result?

I don't believe that the culture today can be reached by the Church if they simply talking about doctrine without understanding the culture of the person or group they are trying to impact. However, if we investigate Paul's strategies, we can see that the doctrine he was discussing was communicated using strategies to enable him to impact their culture with a new message (transform), versus trying to transfer his culture or language onto them.

Today, we can accomplish the same thing by explaining truths ( or doctrine if you will) using the metaphors and situations of the person we are trying to impact with the Gospel. We need to use these sayings or situations to describe the Gospel. We do much damage when using the lingo and situation that are common in the Church, and not use the language and cultural situations of the person we are trying to reach. This "transform versus transfer" issue on culture is key to Paul's approach. While he was able to connect with a very different culture, he was still able to "communicate" the truth of the Gospel so they could "hear".

[carlos72]

Paul's lengthy doctrinal sections contain great life applications. How can our teaching of doctrine accomplish the same result?
In order to accomplish great life application from Bible doctrine, we must do what Paul did in his time, we must study carefully the cultural setting of the audience and their worldview. By doing this, we can understand better their perspective, and we can find issues in the culture that will help us make the point we want to make with doctrine. What I am saying is that maybe we find poems, cultural sayings, or even religious beliefs that will give us a support to our Bible doctrine in that particular culture.
Paul used several things from the culture of his time, he quoted poets, greek philosophers, and cultural sayings to make a point in several of his letters. Therefore, I can say that we need to study not only the culture in where we are ministering, but also the age and gender of the audience we want to reach. Post-modernity is giving us a big challeging to adapt doctrine and have great life aplications from the Bible.

[carlos72]

Sylvia Eikenberry, Assemblies of God Theological Seminary



The author of this question did an excellent job in explaining various ways that the apostle Paul would get the job done of teaching his doctrine to the new Christians in the various churches he was addressing. He said that Paul used metaphors and was able to communicate the truth of the Gospel so they could understand, but he also spoke in many places so perhaps this could not be accomplished completely. He was also bringing out the point that Paul may have said and done so many things, that only a fraction of them are written about in the Bible.

My feeling is that the world is extremely more diverse and complicated culturally speaking than in Paul?s day. More languages exist and more people groups, making the explanation of doctrine even more complicated for today?s evangelists and preachers than it was in Paul?s day. I agree with this author that those taking the message to different people groups need to really understand their culture and language before trying to interpret doctrine. What does one do with a Christian convert who has 4 wives? Does he put away 3 of them? Should he be allowed to be a member of a church? What will happen to the destitute, divorced women?

Communication has exploded so much that Christians have to be careful what they post on the web. Several years ago, some non-Christians were surfing the web and came across offensive material that was written there about their religion. They were so angry that they took it out on a missionary and his son, burning them to death in their van.

Keeping up with cultural changes is a challenge to all called upon to preach the gospel and to teach their congregations appropriate doctrine. May God help those who are called to continue this difficult task.



Paul's lengthy doctrinal sections contain great life applications. How can our teaching of doctrine accomplish the same result?

I don't believe that the culture today can be reached by the Church if they simply talking about doctrine without understanding the culture of the person or group they are trying to impact. However, if we investigate Paul's strategies, we can see that the doctrine he was discussing was communicated using strategies to enable him to impact their culture with a new message (transform), versus trying to transfer his culture or language onto them.

Today, we can accomplish the same thing by explaining truths ( or doctrine if you will) using the metaphors and situations of the person we are trying to impact with the Gospel. We need to use these sayings or situations to describe the Gospel. We do much damage when using the lingo and situation that are common in the Church, and not use the language and cultural situations of the person we are trying to reach. This "transform versus transfer" issue on culture is key to Paul's approach. While he was able to connect with a very different culture, he was still able to "communicate" the truth of the Gospel so they could "hear".
I disgree with the authors of this note in the issue that the world today is more complicated to reach than the one in Paul's time. It is true that the world is more culturally diverse today, but at the same time communication is easier today through technology. Travel is easier an faster today than in Paul's days, internet and computer software made lectures and publications easier today than in Paul's days and the access to different cultural literature helps us understand the other cultures faster than ever before.
I do agree that we must understand and respect the audience culture, especiallly the unsaved ones. We must be careful not to use church language to the lost world or to bring our cultural ideas of morality into another culture. Truth is relative to each culture and period of time, so we must learn to handle it properly in order to teach the real doctrine that is the heart of the Gospel. Correct doctrine will result in correct Christianity in any cultural setting, and we must remember that God loves diversity of expression for each biblical principle.

[kruger5]

Paul's lengthy doctrinal sections contain great life applications. How can our teaching of doctrine accomplish the same result?

Our beliefs form the core of our very being. The fundamental truths must be the foundation of who we are and how we live therefore we must make our teaching of doctrine very practical and relevant to the current context in which we minister. Our teachings must show how the truths of the Word can be lived out in our daily lives. We must also teach in a spirit of love, but also not be timid in sharing the truth for fear of offending someone.

The heart of the message must always be love?not an ?I?m right, you?re wrong? mentality. We need to bring the message to the culture in a way that they will hear it but without compromising its truth. The message should be the same, but the way it is packaged may look different from one setting to another.

[grahamjcjg]

Please hanging with me I have been reading Hauerwas lately?

?What is the church suppose to look like?? It is interesting, since many I know in the States are now currently asking what should the U.S. look like?? It is good to be reminded that goal is the former and not the latter. It is this question that Christians around the world should be considering, answering, and reflecting with their lives, regardless of what there country looks likes. Christ, Paul, and the other Apostles were themselves in the midst of a very Secular nation, but they saw themselves as belonging to a spiritual nation that transcended Rome. Rome was a nation that would change with its leaders and fall to another secular nation. But, the Church is a nation that has stood for 2000 years. There was no attempt to reshape the Roman Empire according to Christian ideals; there was no revolution. Instead the Church was presented as an alternative to the nations. A clear difference of choice between that which the world had to offer and that which Christ and a Christian community had to offer. Christians petitioned citizens from every nation to join the Church and become aliens within their own secular nations, to follow God instead of Caesar, to become themselves an example of Christ. A God with the power to change individuals and that were in turn to form a global nation through discipleship and example.

A few months ago I read an article in the New York Times about a woman in Pakistan that was sentenced to be raped for the actions of her brother. In a Muslim nation, when a women has been raped she is considered worthless and is expected to commit suicide. Instead of taking her life, however, this woman built and started a school. She has since run out of money and the protection she had been offered against here attackers will soon be dismissed. In light of Paul?s theology and his example, I ask, ?What is the Church suppose to look like?? What is our example? The Church has sent no aid nor offered to help with the school? (I must admit I was at first outraged with the United States, because I have bought into the lie that it is her responsibility and not mine.) At this moment, I have done nothing. As a member of that Church, I haven?t lifted a finger. In fact, I am safe at my computer, my resources in my bank, my vacation days collecting, and my thoughts shifting toward what I might soon being eating for lunch.

I am now on a reflective rant, but I believe it is necessary for our correction. The church today is much like the nation of Israel. We have declared ourselves Christians, we probably give money to our churches, and we of course do our best to refrain from sin. Much like Israel who was chided by both Christ and Paul for their lack of positive practical action. Wow, I realize I am painting wide a broad brush, but I am sure most of us recognize the general truth to my claims.

The Church was intended to be a body, a movement, and an example that reflects Christ to the world. Instead most of us just reflect the world to the world. We are no longer an alternative. We have the same problems with gossip, slothfulness, gluttony, pornography, and divorce as the rest of the world. Today the main difference between the church and the world is that we meet in big buildings once a week for a couple of hours on Sunday. We no longer reflect the love or example of Christ with the same magnitude that we once did. Why? I believe, at least in part, because we have chosen to concentrate on the wrong question. We strive to evangelize this country?s laws and policies, but forget to disciple the individuals within its borders (1 Pet. 1-2).

As I sit here and type these thoughts, I am asking this second question: ?What is the Church suppose to look like?? I don?t have all the answers, but I believe if we start to ask this question again, we can collectively begin to discover and then even live the answers. And I have enjoyed reading the responses here on this topic.

[kabandanelson]

see post below;

[kabandanelson]

Paul’s lengthy doctrinal section contains great life applications. How can how teaching of doctrine accomplish the same results?

NAME: Kabanda Nelson
LOCATION: Tyndale Theological Seminary

I do agree with the author of this question, Paul is to be credited for his invaluable efforts to spreading the word of God with proper doctrine. Right from is conversion he was against the Judaizers for perverting the gospel, he did this to set a pure doctrine. Our task today is to read in context, know what Paul wanted the original recipients to understand and then integrating it into our society today.

We have more fertile ground and favorable climate for spreading and teaching the doctrine than in Paul’s time. Paul ministered under a lot of persecution, he was put to prison quite a number of times but even while in chains, he could write back to the people he was concerned about. I know there are places even today which are hard to penetrate with our doctrine due to the cultural bondage in such places, but there are much more favorable conditions for us to minister in. it is true that the world today is more culturally diverse but at the same time easily penetrable through the recent advancement in technology. Communication is much easier, the internet spreads the message through the world by simple click. We must however remember to analyze doctrine clearly, properly understand our commission and then spread it. But I want to say that we must always teach doctrine with love.

[kabandanelson]

This is in reply to paul@kdcag.com

Paul’s lengthy doctrinal section contains great life applications. How can how teaching of doctrine accomplish the same results?

NAME: Kabanda Nelson
LOCATION: Tyndale Theological Seminary

This is in reply to Paul@kdcag.com

I agree with the statement that church can not fully reach the people today by simply talking about doctrine. We have to know doctrine and then integrate it into our society today. This statement is correct and I would encourage this so that we spread the word greatly and fulfill the great commission.

I however, disagree with him where he says that society today can only be reached by the church through significantly valuing the cultures of people we want to impact. I appreciate how cultures form people’s behavior and understanding but in teaching doctrine our primary issue should regard love. Cultures will help us know how the people we want to influence think and value certain matters, but we should not teach doctrine by putting culture our primary concern. There are for example cultures that disallow its people to receive foreigners! How is a missionary then going to work in such environment? We should respect cultures yes, but know that we have to penetrate these cultures by God’s mercy.

My focal point in attempt to teach doctrine would be the concern of love for one another. Actions speak better than words. There is a natural tendency for humans regardless of age to desire love, approaching the society with this as our special concept will allow us continue from where Paul stopped. Paul himself expresses his love for the Corinthians in 1Corinthians 1:12-17 and in so many of his letters to churches and individuals.

[hoffmapc]

Doctrine should never be an end in itself. It must lead to practical outworking in our lives. Correct belief is of little value in and of itself. I can imagine Jesus’ response when we say: “Didn’t I expound on great doctrinal truths in your name” and then fail to live out our doctrinal beliefs. He will say: “I never knew you” (Matt. 22:21-23). In fact, I would maintain that those who hear our teaching and do not apply it actually do not have a complete understanding of the text of scripture. In order to teach doctrine so that it is applied to life by those who hear it, there are several things to keep in mind. First, we must seek to treat thinking rather than behavior. People are transformed as the truth of scripture affects their mind and changes their thinking (Romans 12:2). Transformed thinking will in turn influence behavior. Second, it is important to include in our doctrinal instruction specifically what God requires in light of the doctrine. Third, this specific instruction must be applied to specific life situations with practical steps on the how-to of the teaching. Of course, all of this should be done with a God-centered approach. Just simply telling them to “do better” will not work. They must be directed to the Holy Spirit who can enable them to apply the truth of scripture.

[hoffmapc]

This is in reply to paul@kdcag.com

Paul’s lengthy doctrinal section contains great life applications. How can how teaching of doctrine accomplish the same results?

NAME: Kabanda Nelson
LOCATION: Tyndale Theological Seminary

This is in reply to Paul@kdcag.com

I agree with the statement that church can not fully reach the people today by simply talking about doctrine. We have to know doctrine and then integrate it into our society today. This statement is correct and I would encourage this so that we spread the word greatly and fulfill the great commission.

I however, disagree with him where he says that society today can only be reached by the church through significantly valuing the cultures of people we want to impact. I appreciate how cultures form people’s behavior and understanding but in teaching doctrine our primary issue should regard love. Cultures will help us know how the people we want to influence think and value certain matters, but we should not teach doctrine by putting culture our primary concern. There are for example cultures that disallow its people to receive foreigners! How is a missionary then going to work in such environment? We should respect cultures yes, but know that we have to penetrate these cultures by God’s mercy.

My focal point in attempt to teach doctrine would be the concern of love for one another. Actions speak better than words. There is a natural tendency for humans regardless of age to desire love, approaching the society with this as our special concept will allow us continue from where Paul stopped. Paul himself expresses his love for the Corinthians in 1Corinthians 1:12-17 and in so many of his letters to churches and individuals.

This is a reply to Kabanda Nelson who replied to Paul@kdcag

I agree that love trumps all else in living out our Christian beliefs. Both Jesus (Matthew 22:27-29) and Paul (1Corinthians 8-9, 13) taught this. Yet, I think that you do not place enough value on culture. Yes, truth is truth and culture does not change that, but culture does change how truth is expressed. I agree that culture should not be our one primary concern, but it should be one of our primary concerns. Only when Christians begin to understand culture, both their own culture and foreign culture, will they be able to accurately express God’s love in a way that is understood as such. If the person I am expressing God’s love to does not receive that message of love due to cultural barriers, then I have not truly sent a message of God’s love. I may have attempted to send the message, and I may have been very sincere in my love, but the fact is that love was not received. In fact, I would say that one of the greatest acts of love for another person is to attempt to understand how they communicate and how their culture works, and then seek to communicate God’s love to them in their “language”.

[keelboy]

It amazes me how doctrine has a place in the church throughout the ages. Unlike the law of the OT, doctrine can almost always be taken for face value even though it was written many centuries back. Paul was a great thinker and was close to the voice of God, which is evident in his timeless writings. As I discovered in a class I took earlier, even what some consider ‘dry doctrine’ can be taught to give depth to your relationship with God and your view on life. The problem is most teachers do not spend the time necessary to develop the thoughts for current generations. Having found great pleasure and life changing insight in the doctrine of the NT, I endeavor to pass those skills on to those of whom I have influence.

[keelboy]

We have a responsibility to interpret within context and then to apply in our present day. Preserving the heart of what was meant by the author while also comparing and contrasting what the author says against other thoughts and writings of the author. For example, Paul only spoke to issues that spoke to him. He answered specific questions and then embellished in issues where he knew something about the problems that the church was facing. Even the church of that day had to interpret Paul?s writing filtering it through their lenses or the lenses of the persons who carried the information to Paul. Even in my own job when I receive information from employees I must consider the bearer of the news. How the information was presented to me and where the issue began. We are people and as long as we are people we will always either purposely or inadvertently put our spin on information. And as long as this is true we will need those to interpret and present what we think the author might have intended for not only his audience but for our audience as well.

Paul also spoke in many different places. If you consider that the newest freshman has probably written more volumes of work than Paul did in their first year of college. We must consider that Paul did not have the tools at his disposal in the first century that we do in the 21st century. How much more would we have today if Paul had what we have today to write and record with. We must not only consider what Paul has said but we must consider what Paul did not say. What did he imply what would he imply.

When John wrote about Paul he recognized the greatness of what was unfolding and he worked feverishly to capture what he could for future generations. But we know that the book of Acts could in no way capture all that Paul did or even the highlights of his three missionary journey?s. So we extrapolate and contrast from what we know of Paul and what we know of the society that he lived him to better understand him. How much more should we not also continue the work of contextualizing what he wrote so many years ago so that today?s generation might better understand him.


I like what you say about the filter that you put on the information you receive depending on who is giving it to you. This is very important in all areas of our lives. Everyone has a different perspective on things and therefore filters are necessary for clarity in our communication. For Paul this is evident in his writing to the Philippians. Epaphroditus had been sent to tell Paul of the troubles they faced. He wrote this letter to address their precise needs and at the same time gave them clear doctrine for encouragement. This teaching was originally for this congregation, but he also gave it depth or truth to address needs to churches for generations to come. We can extrapolate the timeless doctrinal statements by understanding all the surrounding elements that brought the teaching to that church at that time; and then bring it forward to our time based on those findings. That is why we are taking this class, to more clearly understand the writings and teachings laid out in God’s Word so we can portray them clearly and precisely to our generation.

[KDG]

We need to continue to teach sound doctrine. Although the methods may change with time, place and audience, the truths behind basic Christian doctrine are eternal.

What is important is to teach doctrine using methodology that is acceptable to the culture of people you are trying to reach so that people can understand what you are trying to teach them and apply it in their own lives. For example, in some cultures, couching doctrinal lessons in narrative stories of the Bible will probably be more effective than expository preaching of an epistle by itself in communicating the message of Christ and any applicable moral lessons. Many Greeks and Jews of Paul’s day relished intellectual discussions and probably responded well to Paul’s rhetoric, applying his arguments to situations in their lives, but others might respond better to these same truths presented in a different package. Of course, I am not proposing we edit the content of the Bible (although using contemporary translations might appeal to unbelievers with little or no church background). Rather, I am discussing how we present the Bible’s contents.

[KDG]

In response to Paul@kdcag.com, I agree with his opinions on how our teaching of doctrine can accomplish the same results as the Apostle Paul.

We do indeed do great damage and can alienate people, especially unbelievers when we rely too much on “church lingo” to communicate doctrine. Rather we need to talk to people in language they appreciate and understand.

The Apostle Paul was indeed trying to transform rather than transfer. I agree with Paul@kdcag.com (and disagree with Melchis 1) about Paul’s effectiveness. Paul called himself “all things to all men” and even went head to head with Peter in Galatians over the issue of fellowshipping with Gentiles. Romans 16 is also full of Gentile-sounding names of people he called his brothers and sisters in Christ, so it is clear that he and those who planted the church in Rome were in fellowship with them and in a position to effectively teach them.

Clearly the Apostle Paul’s willingness meet his audience where they were is a valuable lesson for how we need to approach teaching doctrine to both believers and unbelievers.