Does Doctrine Influence Scripture?

[AnticipateHisComing]

Let's start with a definition of doctrine: a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church.

My premise is that the way one reads and understands scripture is largely based on how they were taught to understand it. This is true for the majority of Christians, certainly true for the official, ordained priests/pastors/ministers of a church. If a pastor comes to a different understanding of scripture than what the church's official position is, they are labeled heretic and pushed out if they continue.

The point of this OP is just to highlight something that should be obvious. Churches influence the understanding of scripture. There are many disagreements in the doctrines of Christianity. Because churches don't tolerate dissension, there has resulted many different denominations. These denominations then train pastors that promote the same understanding that the particular denomination holds. These denominations spend a large portion of the training of their pastors to be familiar with the denomination's doctrine. Of course every denomination will use their "understanding" of scripture to explain why their doctrine is correct.

Now I understand the need for churches to guard against false teachings, but my issue is with churches/pastors that defend doctrine over scripture. They present a "bias" in their scripture to defend the church's doctrine. This can go from a simple explanation of how to read/understand established translations, to one church promoting a particular translation, to a church authorizing a translation, to a church having their own special Bible.

I won't call out a particular church that may have "distorted" scripture to suite their church's doctrine; but if you wish members of such a church to follow scripture over doctrine, then don't be hypocritical and teach the same concept in your church. Lastly, I just want all to admit that there is a bias that all doctrine trained posses.

I offer this poll then.

Does a church's doctrine influence one's understanding of scripture?

My hope in this OP is just to get people to acknowledge that their understanding of scripture has been largely influenced by what the established doctrines of their church teach.

There are so many disagreements here, I just wish one to consider their defense of their belief. Is it biased, based on their church's doctrine or is it truly what scripture teaches?

 

[NonTheologian]

I think, perhaps, that I would not agree with your definition of doctrine as a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church. I would say, rather, that doctrine is the teaching of dogma, which is theological truth. I would further say that if a Christian group holds doctrine that is not true, then that particular group could not be considered to be part of the Church (capital C), which being the body of Christ (Colossians 1:18, Ephesians 5:23) and the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15), could not possibly accept that which is untrue.

From your explanation, I think that when you ask, "Does doctrine influence Scripture?" you mean "Does doctrine influence the way we interpret Scripture?" then I think I would say absolutely yes. Different premises about the meaning of sin and salvation, for example, yield vastly different interpretations of many of the Pauline writings. This is reflected in the great theological gulf between the Orthodox Christianity on the one hand, and Roman Catholicism and its Protestant off-shoots on the other.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Let's start with a definition of doctrine: a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church.

My premise is that the way one reads and understands scripture is largely based on how they were taught to understand it. This is true for the majority of Christians, certainly true for the official, ordained priests/pastors/ministers of a church. If a pastor comes to a different understanding of scripture than what the church's official position is, they are labeled heretic and pushed out if they continue.

The point of this OP is just to highlight something that should be obvious. Churches influence the understanding of scripture. There are many disagreements in the doctrines of Christianity. Because churches don't tolerate dissension, there has resulted many different denominations. These denominations then train pastors that promote the same understanding that the particular denomination holds. These denominations spend a large portion of the training of their pastors to be familiar with the denomination's doctrine. Of course every denomination will use their "understanding" of scripture to explain why their doctrine is correct.

Now I understand the need for churches to guard against false teachings, but my issue is with churches/pastors that defend doctrine over scripture. They present a "bias" in their scripture to defend the church's doctrine. This can go from a simple explanation of how to read/understand established translations, to one church promoting a particular translation, to a church authorizing a translation, to a church having their own special Bible.

I won't call out a particular church that may have "distorted" scripture to suite their church's doctrine; but if you wish members of such a church to follow scripture over doctrine, then don't be hypocritical and teach the same concept in your church. Lastly, I just want all to admit that there is a bias that all doctrine trained posses.

I offer this poll then.

Does a church's doctrine influence one's understanding of scripture?

My hope in this OP is just to get people to acknowledge that their understanding of scripture has been largely influenced by what the established doctrines of their church teach.

There are so many disagreements here, I just wish one to consider their defense of their belief. Is it biased, based on their church's doctrine or is it truly what scripture teaches?

As long as you go first. . .

What you have described in inescapable. We all do it. You are not exempt.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

As long as you go first. . .

What you have described in inescapable. We all do it. You are not exempt.

Such a guilty dismissal.

I am not going first because I have left my church of 50 years. Then we have other examples from the Reformation, like Martin Luther; trained in the church but he was able to put aside some of the church teachings/doctrine that he was taught.

Certainly all Christians have been influenced by what they were taught. Certainly not all respond the same. Some go to church for fellowship, but don't believe everything their church teaches. Some blindly follow every word their church teaches without much study of scripture. Some study scripture but always accept the understanding of it inline with their church's doctrine. Pretty much all of the teachers/priests/pastors succumb to thinking that their church's doctrine is correct.

My point of contention is that people should study scripture more than doctrine and that people in a church should encourage questions to the church's doctrine. A church that defends their teachings would be to the edification of the church. Lastly, we can't be hypocritical. If a Lutheran wants a Mormon to follow scripture above what their church teaches, then the Lutheran must also agree to the same questions of their doctrine.

My concern is with all the disagreements in the Church. We so often put aside our brotherhood with Christ and align with the doctrine of man's teachings. My wish is that we could better discuss and argue teachings inside a church without the quick labeling of heresy. This just hastens separation and formation of a new denomination.

If there is hoped to be resolution of differences between denomination, then there must be agreement to the source of truth. This must be scripture. As presented in the OP, this must not be scripture created by a specific denomination. For some churches have distorted their scripture to suite their doctrine. Of course their is no resolution with a church that believes their doctrine is without error because the one that taught them said he was always right.

I am certainly not a believer of a unified denomination. The Catholic church has shown the corruption of the path of a singular unchallenged absolute authority. Again, my hope is to acknowledge a bias in reading scripture based on our church's doctrine. If one can acknowledge this, then maybe one could better argue from scripture without bias.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Such a guilty dismissal.

I am not going first because I have left my church of 50 years. Then we have other examples from the Reformation, like Martin Luther; trained in the church but he was able to put aside some of the church teachings/doctrine that he was taught.

Certainly all Christians have been influenced by what they were taught. Certainly not all respond the same. Some go to church for fellowship, but don't believe everything their church teaches. Some blindly follow every word their church teaches without much study of scripture. Some study scripture but always accept the understanding of it inline with their church's doctrine. Pretty much all of the teachers/priests/pastors succumb to thinking that their church's doctrine is correct.

My point of contention is that people should study scripture more than doctrine and that people in a church should encourage questions to the church's doctrine. A church that defends their teachings would be to the edification of the church. Lastly, we can't be hypocritical. If a Lutheran wants a Mormon to follow scripture above what their church teaches, then the Lutheran must also agree to the same questions of their doctrine.

My concern is with all the disagreements in the Church. We so often put aside our brotherhood with Christ and align with the doctrine of man's teachings. My wish is that we could better discuss and argue teachings inside a church without the quick labeling of heresy. This just hastens separation and formation of a new denomination.

If there is hoped to be resolution of differences between denomination, then there must be agreement to the source of truth. This must be scripture. As presented in the OP, this must not be scripture created by a specific denomination. For some churches have distorted their scripture to suite their doctrine. Of course their is no resolution with a church that believes their doctrine is without error because the one that taught them said he was always right.

I am certainly not a believer of a unified denomination. The Catholic church has shown the corruption of the path of a singular unchallenged absolute authority. Again, my hope is to acknowledge a bias in reading scripture based on our church's doctrine. If one can acknowledge this, then maybe one could better argue from scripture without bias.

Your arguments are naive and simplest, not to mention hypocritical. All theology (yes, even yours) is "doctrine of man's teachings".

Common thoughts I've seen:

"We all should just love each other" Really? What exactly does that mean?

"I just love the Lord." Who is the Lord? What do you mean by that?

This anti-church, anti-intellectual, anti-doctrine stuff is really getting tiresome.

 

[Extraneous]

As far as doctrine goes:

Galatians 5:3 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh[a]; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Seems pretty simple.



As far as intellectualism goes:

1 Corinthians 1:20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

26 Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”[d]

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Deleted.

 

[Extraneous]

Deleted

.


Hebrews 10:15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:

16 “This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”

Mathew 23:8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.


1 John 2:27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.

John 14:23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

25 “All this I have spoken while still with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.


and finally, last but not least...


Galatians 5:3 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh[a]; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

 

[Extraneous]

Mathew 13:13 This is why I speak to them in parables:

“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:

“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15 For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’[a]
16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

18 “Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: 19 When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in their heart. This is the seed sown along the path. 20 The seed falling on rocky ground refers to someone who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. 21 But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. 22 The seed falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful. 23 But the seed falling on good soil refers to someone who hears the word and understands it. This is the one who produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.”


Galatians 5:3 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh[a]; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

6:8 Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

 

[Erose]

I would like to say that the OP brings up some good points, particularly the point that no one reads Scripture without using their faith tradition or personal beliefs as the lens. This is a fact, and it explains why there are so many variations of understanding of Scripture. This is a fact pure and simple.

The issue that the OP seems to have is the false belief that he can read Scripture on his on in a vacuum. There are two issues with this: 1) The only way he/she can do this is if he was isolated from every single Christian influence, which obviously is impossible for him/her to be already as he is on this board.

2) It is impossible to interpret Scripture flawlessly on one's on, because scripture is too complex. To understand the NT, you have to have a thorough understanding of the OT, understanding of the culture in which it was written, and understand the history of the locations it was written. The same pretty much goes with the OT. That is a lot of knowledge one must have on their own. I've been reading Scripture for 30 years now, as well as studying all this other stuff, and I would not pretend I know more than 2000 years worth of theologians and Biblical scholars who are smarter than I.

My point is, that he is correct, no one reads Scripture in a vacuum. He is incorrect in believing he can, and that he would be better for it.

 

[High Fidelity]

Absolutely and often cases it contradicts it.

One such example I observed recently is a) needing to be confirmed (into), b) a member of and c) in good standing with the church in order to receive Communion.

Christ told us to take bread and wine to remember Him. Not "sign here, here, here and here, then you can remember Me".

 

[Erose]

Absolutely and often cases it contradicts it.

well if you have two or more opposing understandings of a passage, obviously only one or none are going to be right, and the rest are false.

One such example I observed recently is a) needing to be confirmed (into), b) a member of and c) in good standing with the church in order to receive Communion.

Christ told us to take bread and wine to remember Him. Not "sign here, here, here and here, then you can remember Me".

This thread isn't about your misunderstandings on the Lord's Supper, is about the fact that everyone reads Scripture through a lens.

 

[Thursday]

Let's start with a definition of doctrine: a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church.

My premise is that the way one reads and understands scripture is largely based on how they were taught to understand it. This is true for the majority of Christians, certainly true for the official, ordained priests/pastors/ministers of a church. If a pastor comes to a different understanding of scripture than what the church's official position is, they are labeled heretic and pushed out if they continue.

The point of this OP is just to highlight something that should be obvious. Churches influence the understanding of scripture. There are many disagreements in the doctrines of Christianity. Because churches don't tolerate dissension, there has resulted many different denominations. These denominations then train pastors that promote the same understanding that the particular denomination holds. These denominations spend a large portion of the training of their pastors to be familiar with the denomination's doctrine. Of course every denomination will use their "understanding" of scripture to explain why their doctrine is correct.

Now I understand the need for churches to guard against false teachings, but my issue is with churches/pastors that defend doctrine over scripture. They present a "bias" in their scripture to defend the church's doctrine. This can go from a simple explanation of how to read/understand established translations, to one church promoting a particular translation, to a church authorizing a translation, to a church having their own special Bible.

I won't call out a particular church that may have "distorted" scripture to suite their church's doctrine; but if you wish members of such a church to follow scripture over doctrine, then don't be hypocritical and teach the same concept in your church. Lastly, I just want all to admit that there is a bias that all doctrine trained posses.

I offer this poll then.

Does a church's doctrine influence one's understanding of scripture?

My hope in this OP is just to get people to acknowledge that their understanding of scripture has been largely influenced by what the established doctrines of their church teach.

There are so many disagreements here, I just wish one to consider their defense of their belief. Is it biased, based on their church's doctrine or is it truly what scripture teaches?

Jesus didn't write a book, he started a Church.

His Church then wrote down his teachings.

If you want to know what Jesus taught, listen to his Church.

Luke 10:16
"Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me."

 

[High Fidelity]

well if you have two or more opposing understandings of a passage, obviously only one or none are going to be right, and the rest are false.

This thread isn't about your misunderstandings on the Lord's Supper, is about the fact that everyone reads Scripture through a lens.

If I've misspoken, please point out where I'm wrong... without reading it through the lens of Catholic or any other denominational lens.

And yes, you're right. I don't care what "Scripture says to you". I care what it says because it only says one thing. The sooner more people realise that the better. It isn't open for interpretation. It says what it says, plain as day and it reads the same to me and you as it does any man or woman sat on a council or committee tasked with telling us what it says.

You're also right that it is often read through a lens and that lens is typically the presupposed narrative of whichever denomination said reader subscribes.

I've spoken to people whose faith was battered and broken and they affirmed their denomination before they affirmed Christ. They couldn't even affirm Christ but they 'knew' that they were at least X, Y or Z.

So yes, I agree with you that it does happen, but I disagree that it's universally applicable to every follower of Christ.

 

[Erose]

If I've misspoken, please point out where I'm wrong... without reading it through the lens of Catholic or any other denominational lens.

That is the issue, you can't. I'm not sure how you understand the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, but whatever belief you have, you can't help interpret that passage through that lens, unless you have one of "aha!" moments.

And yes, you're right. I don't care what "Scripture says to you". I care what it says because it only says one thing. The sooner more people realise that the better. It isn't open for interpretation. It says what it says, plain as day and it reads the same to me and you as it does any man or woman sat on a council or committee tasked with telling us what it says.

I agree I also think that for the most part Scripture is very plain as well, so why then do you and I get differing understandings of various passages? There is a reason for that, and I have concluded that every faith tradition has its own sacred tradition of beliefs, and it is by this belief system that they interpret Scripture. There is no other answer for this phenomenon.

I've spoken to people whose faith was battered and broken and they affirmed their denomination before they affirmed Christ. They couldn't even affirm Christ but they 'knew' that they were at least X, Y or Z.

I really think that this view is really unfair to take. The reason being is that for many Christians, Christ and their church are really one and the same. It where they can go to actively meet Christ, through the Word preached and in most the Word consumed. Church is the Body of Christ, and when you cease to believe that about your denomination, then there really is only one course of action in my opinion. Leave and find another that can fit that bill.

So yes, I agree with you that it does happen, but I disagree that it's universally applicable to every follower of Christ.

Those who are in the initial stages of conversion I agree, but most of them when they read Scripture don't really understand what they are reading anyway. Once though they have either become indoctrinated or have indoctrinated themselves, this ceases to be the case.

 

[BobRyan]

Corrupt church doctrine influences how one accepts scripture. Obvious examples where 'A' and "B" are not BOTH right. Rather "A" is right and "B" is error -- can be seen all the time,.

For example -- when faced with the corrupt doctrine of the church magisterium of His day - Christ said this.

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.


Yet in Acts 10 - Peter shows how corrupt doctrines of Jewish leaders and caused him to view it as "unlawful" for Jew to even associate with a gentile -- "AS IF" the Bible ever said such a thing.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

The issue that the OP seems to have is the false belief that he can read Scripture on his on in a vacuum.

Ding, ding, ding, ding! Yes!

We all have presuppositions and biases.

 

[Standing Up]

There are so many disagreements here, I just wish one to consider their defense of their belief. Is it biased, based on their church's doctrine or is it truly what scripture teaches?

Gosh, if your premise is right, how would one ever know?!

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Your arguments are naive and simplest, not to mention hypocritical. All theology (yes, even yours) is "doctrine of man's teachings".

So the standard response, oft repeated by the trained in doctrine. Oh, how they hate for the lay to question their doctrine/knowledge.

Let's break down the their "intellectual" rebuttal to a "naive and simple argument" and see how "intellectual" it is. If you diss doctrine, you just create a new doctrine of your own. Because you diss a concept that you then partake in, you are a hypocrite, therefore your complaint and argument is invalid.

Error 1, even if one might be hypocritical, doesn't force a truism that their every argument is invalid.
Error 2, implied assumption that if one has a complaint with some aspect of doctrine, then that individual is against all doctrines.
Error 3, one in the lay asking the church to explain and defend their doctrine is creating a new doctrine.
Error 4, disagreeing with a church's doctrine means you are creating a new doctrine.

I find the last point the most in error. Go back to the first sentence in the OP. Doctrine is a belief taught by a church. Disagreeing with a doctrine in one church does not make you a church teaching a new belief. If one left a church and found a group of others that taught the same belief than you could call it a doctrine. But more commonly I put disagreements with a church's doctrine in another camp. One can disagree with one of a church's doctrine and just think it is something that should not be taught as truth, as something that all must believe. There are many things we will not know until we get to heaven, why not put it in that box instead of the box that says we know for sure what is true.

Personally, in arguments and discussion on the interpretation of scripture, I like to use the expression of "this is what I believe". Note, I am not presenting a belief that is taught by a group of people. Note, that I am not claiming it to be true. Note, I am not even asking you to profess the same belief. Can you understand how this is not doctrine?

Common thoughts I've seen:

"We all should just love each other" Really? What exactly does that mean?

"I just love the Lord." Who is the Lord? What do you mean by that?

How about you just argue what is posted instead of lumping my OP into a category of your favorite ideas to belittle.

I could just as easily group your post with those in churches that think the Pope is inerrant and every doctrine with it.

This anti-church, anti-intellectual, anti-doctrine stuff is really getting tiresome.

Nothing in my posts are anti-doctrine. They are anti, you can't question the church's doctrine. I wish more did know scripture well enough to question what churches proclaim as truth. I wish churches would be more receptive to questions defending their doctrine with scripture. I wish churches would not be so quick to claim knowledge and truth on every doctrine, that they would leave some up to the unknown.

So great is the misunderstanding of the purpose of disagreements in the church along with the intentions of my OP. I think the brothers of Christ would be edified so much better if they were taught to question doctrine instead of blindly following it. I think the disagreements between churches would be mitigated if pastors were taught that this is what we believe instead of this is the truth. I think churches would be so much stronger if questions were asked and answered. Somehow you think this ant-church. I think you are just anti-questions.

But, if you really find it so tiresome, then just ignore it go back to your place of comfort where one gets to talk and say what is the truth without it being questioned. Sorry, for me what is really getting tiresome is the continued claims by some that you can't question the church's teachings.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

The issue that the OP seems to have is the false belief that he can read Scripture on his on in a vacuum. There are two issues with this: 1) The only way he/she can do this is if he was isolated from every single Christian influence, which obviously is impossible for him/her to be already as he is on this board.

Nowhere in my OP or other posts have I encouraged reading scripture in a vacuum. I strongly support fellowship in Bible studies and discussions. It is how the early church developed.

My point was simply to get people to admit to having a bias based on their church's doctrine. Understand some are more indoctrinated than others. Understand that some are more susceptible to be unquestioning of their training than others. Understand that some church's doctrine are more rigidly taught as truth than others.

Understand that bias does not have to be blinding, but it has to be acknowledge to exist.

2) It is impossible to interpret Scripture flawlessly on one's on, because scripture is too complex.

You disregard the Holy Spirit. If He could guide the apostle Paul to understanding, then He can guide any. Not to say it happens to all, even though there is a prophesy that all will.

Matthew 17:20 He replied, “Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."
Acts 2:17 “‘In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.​

To understand the NT, you have to have a thorough understanding of the OT, understanding of the culture in which it was written, and understand the history of the locations it was written. The same pretty much goes with the OT. That is a lot of knowledge one must have on their own.

I agree one should read the whole Bible. I disagree with your stated importance of the need to know every bit of 6000 years of culture and language is required for understanding the message God wants us to know. The priests of Jesus' time had your thorough "knowledge" of scripture and they were the ones that made the "traditions" so they knew those also, but Jesus said they did not have understanding.

You seem enamored with history, and the Bible does have that in it. Understand that there is a greater message in scripture besides just history. The greater message is timeless. An extensive understanding of intimacies of rules for the governance of a nation in a time of completely different health conditions is not a requirement for understanding the timeless message of God's love for his people.

Look at the repeated discussions on CF. Sorry, but I don't see many posts explaining the true understanding with explanations quoting "understanding of the culture in which it was written, and understand the history of the locations it was written" as if that was the path to true understanding. I do see people continually repeating that one must be trained with this knowledge to have a correct understanding. Somehow it validates one's statements even though the obscure knowledge is not quoted or pertinent to a discussion.

Even if I did not know what the eye of a needle was, I would still understand that it was a difficult path. This is the beauty of scripture in presenting the message that God desires us to know. It is a timeless message and repeated to reinforce and expand our knowledge on certain concepts. I call it the best fugue ever written; take that Bach. The basic ones are so simple to not be screwed up. God created us. Man chose not to follow God. God sent his Son to die for us and to bring us to eternal life as Jesus resurrection and ascension to heaven testifies.

We start with milk. We grow to eat solid food. If you dare to extend that analogy; after eating solid food for a while, it doesn't have to be fed to us.

I've been reading Scripture for 30 years now, as well as studying all this other stuff, and I would not pretend I know more than 2000 years worth of theologians and Biblical scholars who are smarter than I.

What a cute premise. The one who has studied the longest and is the smartest is the one with the correct understanding. Understand that very intelligent people of equal knowledge have come to completely different understandings of some texts.

Your claim to not know more than some much more knowledgeable "experts" than you is inaccurate; for you have chosen to agree with one set of experts over a different set of experts. Most likely because of a bias injected from following one church's doctrine.

I hope you are not saying that the learned of other churches are idiots. I hope you are not saying that everyone that disagrees with you is an idiot. Learn that there is no lack of those with much extensive knowledge of scripture with such a varying understanding of those words. Learn that knowledge is not understanding.

Recognize that most people defend the faith they were raised in, because that is the way they were raised, not because one faith has more learned experts.

My point is, that he is correct, no one reads Scripture in a vacuum.

Glad you acknowledge this, the main point of my OP.

He is incorrect in believing he can, and that he would be better for it.

Never said this; not my desire to make a universal church or a church without doctrines or one that did not teach anything or for people to avoid churches and just stay home and read the Bible.