There are great divisions in the church today that are formed over nothing more than differences in doctrine. Every denomination, every church, and even every individual has a doctrine that they teach, and live by. But, not all doctrines are biblical, or even true.

The word doctrine, means "teaching." When we see this word in Acts, chapter 2, verse 42, that's what it's referring to, the teachings of the apostles. Some translations of the Bible even substitute the word teaching for doctrine in this verse.

Just because someone teaches something from the Bible doesn't mean that we should automatically accept it. I'm sure that Satan has the Bible memorized, and can quote any verse to his purpose. But, that doesn't make it true. Ultimately, we are all responsible before God for the doctrine that we accept, teach and live. We cannot blame pastor so-and-so for the wrong teachings that we have accepted.

What makes doctrine good? Only one thing; that it is a clear Biblical principle. To be that, it needs to appear in both the Old Testament, and the New Testament. We should see it in The Law, the Prophets, the Gospels, and the Epistles. Not only should we see it, but it needs to be a commandment to us before we do it.

Just because we see that someone in the Bible did something, doesn't mean that we should do likewise. Job's wife told him to "curse God, and die" (Job 2:9). But, I think everyone will agree that we aren't to do that. Or, after Jesus was taken captive, Judas hanged himself (Mt 27:5). That doesn't mean that suicide is a biblical principle.

Throughout the history of the church, various people have taken the action of someone, or a blessing that is mentioned in the Bible, and turned it into a doctrine. There are churches today who handle poisonous snakes as part of their worship service. They are taking the promise of God in Mark, chapter 16, verse 18 and turning it into doctrine. Does that make them right? As far as they are concerned, the rest of us are in sin, because we aren't handling deadly snakes in our services.

There is a religion called "La Luz del Mundo." We encountered them several years ago and spoke with one of their pastors. He told us, "We know what good doctrine is, because our apostle tells us; and we know our apostle is of God, because he gives us good doctrine." That's a circular argument if I ever heard one. This group spends more time worshipping their "apostle" than they do worshipping God. They are a false cult, but because they are following their false doctrine, they don't even know it.

God is a God of liberty, not of slavery. He never has been legalistic, and He never will be. We, as believers, don't have any right to add anything to the Word of God. In fact, the book of Revelations tells us that those who do will be cursed.

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Rv 22:18

When the New Testament church was founded in the book of Acts, the apostles were confronted with a problem of doctrine. Most of the early believers came from Jewish roots, and were very legalistic. However, there was also a group of Greek believers, who didn't have any background in the law. Some preachers were going around adding to their burden, teaching Jewish legalism. The apostles answer was to send two of their number to the "gentile believers" with a letter stating:

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Acts 15:28-29

If the apostles, who had walked with Jesus, didn't see a need, or feel a right, to burden the people of God with a list of rules to live by, who are we to do so? Not only this, but what do we think the people will gain by following these man-made rules?

Actually, the church has followed the Jews better than we even know. Much of the legalism that Jesus chided the Pharisees about wasn't what was written in the Law, but what was included in the "Oral Law." This "Oral Law" was supposedly received by Moses from the mouth of God at the same time that he received the written law, but God supposedly commanded him to keep it oral, and not write it down.

However, this "Oral Law," that was never supposed to change grew, and grew, and grew throughout Jewish history, up until the time of Jesus. It became so complicated, that the Jewish rabbi's could no longer agree on it.

The oral law became a much greater burden than the written one. For example, part of Deuteronomy, chapter 14, verse 21 says: "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk." This is the written Law. The oral law adds that the Jews can't eat milk products in the same meal as meat, because there is a possibility that the milk came from the mother of the cow that the meat came from.

So, in order to not accidentally break the written law, the Jews created in the oral law an addition. But, this addition doesn't make anyone more holy, nor does it give anyone liberty, nor does it give life more abundantly. All it does is create more legalism and keep people from seeing the face of God. Jesus said:

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Mt 15:9

When we teach as doctrine commandments that are our interpretation of God's will, instead of what the Bible clearly says, we are doing the exact same thing as the Jews did. Our worship to God is only a religious act, done in vain, because we've ignored the God of the commandments.

Let's get down to some specific examples:

· There are churches that teach that a woman has to have her head covered. Why? "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" (1 Cor 11:13). Please note, this is a question, not a commandment. Going on further, verse 15 answers this question by saying, "for her hair is given her for a covering." If God gave her this covering, why do these churches teach that it isn't enough, and she needs another?

· There are churches that teach that a woman must not wear pants. Why? Because the Bible teaches that a man should not dress himself in woman's clothes, and a woman should not dress herself in men's clothes. But, when that verse was written, pants didn't exist; everyone wore tunics. There were obviously different styles for men and women, but they were all tunics. So, if they didn't wear pants back then, how can we teach that it's sin for a woman to wear pants now?

· There are churches that teach that a woman shouldn't wear makeup, paint her fingernails, or even comb her hair. Why? "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array" (1 Tim 2:9). But, there's a word missing from our translations of this verse, it translates as "rather than." It should say "rather than with braided hair…" In other words, Paul didn't say women couldn't dress well, and use makeup, but that it was more important to have an inner beauty, instead of concentrating on the outer one. If that's the case, why do these churches teach that it's sin for a woman to make herself beautiful for her husband? No wonder there are so many men who run after others.

· There are churches that teach that a woman can't teach. Why? Because Paul wrote: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" (1 Tim 2:11-12). But, the word that is translated as "man" in that verse can also be translated as "husband" (the two are the same word in both Greek and Hebrew). In the cultural context, we can easily see why Paul didn't want a woman to teach her own husband, because that would give her authority over him. That doesn't mean the woman can't teach. In fact, elsewhere Paul commands the older women to teach the younger ones. There are a number of examples of women in leadership in the churches that Paul founded. If he put them in leadership, who are we to say that they can't be there?

· There are churches that teach that there is a great space of time in between Genesis 1:1, and Genesis 1:2. Why? Because they are trying to make the Bible agree with the time clock that the evolutionists have created. By doing this, they can put all the evolutionary "evidence" (which isn't really evidence) in this time period. If God doesn't speak of evolution, who are we to add it to our doctrine?

It's amazing how many of these doctrines that man has made put women into slavery. I can go on, and on with examples, but I don't want to take the time in this brief commentary.

I'm not trying to tell you that what you believe is wrong, only that you examine what you believe, with an open mind, and insure that the doctrine you have is one that God has established, not one man has established. God hasn't created us to be in slavery to any doctrine, but to live in the liberty of His Holy Spirit; being directed and guided by Him into all truth. Don't let a doctrine of men rob you of receiving the fullness of understanding and blessing that God has for you.