Does Doctrine Influence Scripture?

[Erose]

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.

Then I apologize for not understanding your premise correctly.

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.

I agree.

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.​

​

No I don't disregard the Holy Spirit, I acknowledge the ordinary means by which He leads us into all truth, the Church. The truth is found in the deposit of faith given to us by Christ and protected by His Church. It is here where the Holy Spirit leads us.

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.

Never claimed as such. One needs to have a good understanding of the period of time in which the document was written, and have some idea of the customs and beliefs of that time. We can't have a perfect understanding of history, because we didn't live it. Heck even the history we are living, no one really has a perfect understanding of it. My point being is that you should have a good concept of the period of time being discussed.

A perfect example is what the word "betroth" means when it comes to Joseph and Mary during the Annunciation. Most people conclude that they were engaged, because that is what betroth means today. Back then Jewish custom was that during the period of time of betrothal the man and woman were already considered married, not engaged. This makes certain things when looking at those passages have differing meaning and emphasis.

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.

Actually it makes things discussed make more sense, and puts them in better perspective. Bible commentaries normally do and should point out important aspects of the culture and history of those passages which proper understanding can be skewed without that knowledge.

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'm not speaking of one scholar, I'm speaking of the accumulation of wisdom of 2000 years of Saints, theologians, and scholars. I cannot possibly even consider myself as being smarter or more insightful than that. No one should. There are so many times in my studies that I have had "aha" moments, and discovered something that I never heard before, and then a month or year down the road when reading the Fathers or the work of some theologian, and find what I thought I discovered, being discussed 1500 years ago. From these humbling experiences of my youth, I have learned that there is nothing new under the sun, when it comes to theology, and quite frankly new things in theology should be avoided like the plague.

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.

Why would I say that? What I will say, is that when someone decides to start over theologically, then there are going to be a lot of false understandings that come out of it. I've have not yet studied a theologian that has gotten everything right. There is always a percentage of what every theologian teaches that is going to be unorthodox, that is just the facts. I don't think anyone can live long enough to fully learn the whole paradigm of Faith. It is too great a deposit.

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.

Ok.

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.

Ok.

 

[Erose]

Doctrine doesn't save.

You post a one line summary of my post and ask a question. If you would have quoted the whole post, one would have seen the answer to your question in the previous sentence.

If you wish to learn the path to salvation, learn the difference between faith and doctrine. Faith that saves is so simple to be expressed in one sentence. The doctrines of churches are made so complex. My point was never to say that there are not hidden or "meaty" concepts in Christianity. My point in the last post was to put perspective on the diminutive importance of so many doctrines when we get to heaven. Of course you won't postulate a cognitive rebuttal to that argument.

I think it is save to say that knowing how to be saved (doctrine) is extremely important to being saved. If I misunderstand Scripture and believe that being baptized in the name of Paul will save me, am I truly saved?

 

[Edmond Smith]

What does the scripture say?
It tells us to be Born Again. To repent and place our trust in Jesus. Then to be baptized in the name of the Father, son and Holy Spirit. To read our bible daily and to pray. To show that you understand that you are dead to this world and you are risen as Christ.

Paul can't save, He could only lead others to be save, which He did.

 

[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?

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

You do the very same thing that you accuse others of doing. You hold doctrines quite rigidly; you proselytize ; you defend your doctrines, and you think that others are wrong where they disagree with you. You, like every denomination, have read scripture and come to your conclusions, so do you doubt yourself everyday?

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

You do the very same thing that you accuse others of doing. You hold doctrines quite rigidly; you proselytize ; you defend your doctrines, and you think that others are wrong where they disagree with you. You, like every denomination, have read scripture and come to your conclusions, so do you doubt yourself everyday?

REPOST.

You already attempted this simple argument in post 5.
I addressed it in my quite lengthy post 19;
to which you responded with this insightful rebuttal, "I am not the laity".

Not going to argue like a child and endlessly repeat the same thing, while ignoring the other's arguments.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

I think it is save to say that knowing how to be saved (doctrine) is extremely important to being saved. If I misunderstand Scripture and believe that being baptized in the name of Paul will save me, am I truly saved?

If you think understanding how one is saved is so important to being saved, answer me this question. At what age is this understanding required to be saved?

You who advertises as being Catholic, baptize infants. Babies obviously don't understand any words, let alone the Catholic requirements for salvation. Yet, you believe that if a child would die after being baptized, it would be saved. But now you argue that a grown person must know and understand how God's grace is effected into them such that they may be saved.

Do you understand that if a baby is saved by grace, while it is not understood;
then you can understand that a mentally handicapped person can be saved by grace even if he does not have the intellectual capacity to understand the Catholic requirements for salvation;
then you should understand that all are saved by grace. God does not require understanding of his grace for it to be effective. That's why it is called grace.

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.​

 

[jimmyjimmy]

REPOST.

You already attempted this simple argument in post 5.
I addressed it in my quite lengthy post 19;
to which you responded with this insightful rebuttal, "I am not the laity".

Not going to argue like a child and endlessly repeat the same thing, while ignoring the other's arguments.

I can at least try until you possibly are able to comprehend what I am saying and admit that you accuse yourself in the OP.

BTW, I said, I am the laity.

 

[Erose]

If you think understanding how one is saved is so important to being saved, answer me this question. At what age is this understanding required to be saved?

You who advertises as being Catholic, baptize infants. Babies obviously don't understand any words, let alone the Catholic requirements for salvation. Yet, you believe that if a child would die after being baptized, it would be saved. But now you argue that a grown person must know and understand how God's grace is effected into them such that they may be saved.

Do you understand that if a baby is saved by grace, while it is not understood;
then you can understand that a mentally handicapped person can be saved by grace even if he does not have the intellectual capacity to understand the Catholic requirements for salvation;
then you should understand that all are saved by grace. God does not require understanding of his grace for it to be effective. That's why it is called grace.

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.​

If those who are doing the Baptism do not have the doctrine to know that baptism is edifying to even to babies and the mentally disabled, then they wouldn't be baptized and thus not saved. So yes doctrine does matter and your argument falls on its face.

Look somewhere along the line to be saved you got to know what is required one way or another. That is just a fact.

If you don't know Jesus is God, and He has the power to save (a doctrine) how are you going to be saved? Faith requires a belief.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

I can at least try until you possibly are able to comprehend what I am saying and admit that you accuse yourself in the OP.

BTW, I said, I am the laity.

You try not. Did you address a single argument that I made in post 19?
You repeat with different words with no expansion of your argument.

Sorry about the slip on you being the laity. Doesn't matter for the argument though. It is what they say, just like you.

I realize another problem you have in your attack on this thread. You have classified any question on a church's doctrine as "throwing" rocks. You further associate all who do this as being anti-doctrine. You then make a silly argument that this is hypocritical.

As I have already stated, I am not anti-doctrine and do not wish to eliminate all of it.

Your unwavering defense of church doctrine is hypocritical. Answer my question, would you desire a Muslim to question the doctrine he has been taught? How about a Mormon, or Lutheran or Baptist or any other denomination besides the one you hold as true. Also learn from scripture that even the first apostles had arguments on doctrine. Your defend the words of the church's teachers as if you were the Pope himself. Sorry for me thinking you were professionally trained. Learn from scripture, it is not a sin to question what people teach. Edmond had a good post 37 that escaped you. The take away is that many people teach many different things, but the Bereans examined scripture to see if it was true. They did not just assume what was taught was true. Only when it was confirmed with scripture could they believe it.

Looking at the poll results, it is clear that most, 9 out of 10 people agree with the OP; that people have a bias in understanding scripture based on the doctrine/teachings of a church they follow. The OP never deals with how this happens or explains it. The OP just puts this statement out there as obvious. As the poll results show and the comments by those people show, this claim is not argued.

Now there has been one dissenter in the poll. That person has not been brave enough to state that he voted no and why. You act as that person. You argue not the OP premise that people have a bias based on the doctrine they were taught. You try and make this thread about the "evils of questioning the church". If you really want to be true to this thread, then argue that people don't have a bias based on the church they attend.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

If those who are doing the Baptism do not have the doctrine to know that baptism is edifying to even to babies and the mentally disabled, then they wouldn't be baptized and thus not saved. So yes doctrine does matter and your argument falls on its face.

You totally ignore my argument, because you have none. The argument was would a baby that has no understanding of God's grace be saved. Please try again to answer that argument.

You change the argument to be about the one performing the baptismal sacrament as if it was so important to their salvation. Even this argument, that skirts mine, has multiple problems. Do Catholics require Lutherans or Baptists to be baptized again when converting to Catholicism? They were originally baptized by one who believes different doctrine on salvation. According to you the one performing the sacrament is so important, so I would think they need to be baptized again, according to your logic. Further if Catholics thought as you state that the understanding just has to be in the one performing the sacrament, then why do they close communion to only those that hold the same doctrine as they do? The priest with the correct understanding should be able to dispense God's grace as he sees fit. The more the better.

Lastly I find it ironic that a Catholic argues so much that understanding salvation is so important to salvation. Explain how the church members for hundreds of years were edified and obtained understanding when much of their church services was with a foreign tongue.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

You repeat with different words with no expansion of your argument.

Because there is no need to answer you in every point to disagree with you.

You have classified any question on a church's doctrine as "throwing" rocks. You further associate all who do this as being anti-doctrine.

No, I haven't.

You then make a silly argument that this is hypocritical.

Nothing silly about it. It perfectly addresses the issue.

Answer my question, would you desire a Muslim to question the doctrine he has been taught?

Of course.

How about a Mormon, or Lutheran or Baptist or any other denomination

Yes, no, no.

If you can not tell the difference between a Christian and a Muslim. . .

 

[Erose]

You totally ignore my argument, because you have none. The argument was would a baby that has no understanding of God's grace be saved. Please try again to answer that argument.

I did answer the argument. The child was saved through the Sacrament of Baptism, which is a doctrine of the Church, and the only reason why the Sacrament of Baptism was performed on the child, was because of the "belief" that the Sacrament would justify the child. I'm not sure what you are not getting.

You change the argument to be about the one performing the baptismal sacrament as if it was so important to their salvation. Even this argument, that skirts mine, has multiple problems. Do Catholics require Lutherans or Baptists to be baptized again when converting to Catholicism? They were originally baptized by one who believes different doctrine on salvation. According to you the one performing the sacrament is so important, so I would think they need to be baptized again, according to your logic.

You are missing the point. The community, i.e the Church possesses a doctrine, that shows to them the ordinary means by which one can be saved, i.e. baptism. The doctrine explains who can and cannot be baptized, it explains what baptism does, and it explains what is required for the rite to be legitimate.

In the case of the Lutherans or Baptists or other Christians, it has been determined that as long as the requirements of the rite are met, and the proper understanding of the Trinity on the part of the Community is there, then the Baptism is valid. These are things though you wouldn't understand without doctrine.

Further if Catholics thought as you state that the understanding just has to be in the one performing the sacrament, then why do they close communion to only those that hold the same doctrine as they do? The priest with the correct understanding should be able to dispense God's grace as he sees fit. The more the better.

Again it is the understanding of the Community (Church), not the minister of the Sacrament that is important.

Lastly I find it ironic that a Catholic argues so much that understanding salvation is so important to salvation. Explain how the church members for hundreds of years were edified and obtained understanding when much of their church services was with a foreign tongue.

Because of catechism. The Church members were taught the doctrines of the faith, from a wee child to an adult. Also during this time in Catholic Schools, which the far majority of Catholics at that time went to, taught Latin. Then you also throw in the fact that Missals, had both the Latin and the vernacular language side by side, so that the worshiper who did not know Latin, could follow along in English.

Look, here is the thing. It is hard to be saved if you don't know what you are being saved from, and for that matter knowing that you have to be saved. Also if you don't know who can save you, how can you go ask Him to save you?

The fact is, faith requires knowledge, initial salvation, requires faith yes, but it also requires knowledge of the process by which one is saved. It is hard to have faith in Jesus, if you don't know who Jesus is (a doctrine by the way).

 

[Edmond Smith]

Look, here is the thing. It is hard to be saved if you don't know what you are being saved from, and for that matter knowing that you have to be saved. Also if you don't know who can save you, how can you go ask Him to save you?

The fact is, faith requires knowledge, initial salvation, requires faith yes, but it also requires knowledge of the process by which one is saved. It is hard to have faith in Jesus, if you don't know who Jesus is (a doctrine by the way).

Your being saved from the wrath of God. That is what your being saved from.
Only Jesus can Save you. Your priest, your sunday school teacher, water baptismal, sprinkling, the little birdbath thing with the so called holy water, and a million other things people say can....Cannot save you. Only Christ can.
Salvation requirements have already been met through Christ. There's nothing you can do to save yourself, least you boast.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: (Eph 2:8 KJV)
Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Eph 2:9 KJV)

 

[Erose]

Your being saved from the wrath of God. That is what your being saved from.
Only Jesus can Save you. Your priest, your sunday school teacher, water baptismal, sprinkling, the little birdbath thing with the so called holy water, and a million other things people say can....Cannot save you. Only Christ can.
Salvation requirements have already been met through Christ. There's nothing you can do to save yourself, least you boast.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: (Eph 2:8 KJV)
Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Eph 2:9 KJV)

Ok, so I take you that you agree with me that you have to know something to be saved.

 

[Standing Up]

You totally ignore my argument, because you have none. The argument was would a baby that has no understanding of God's grace be saved. Please try again to answer that argument.

He said yes, but only because the baby was properly baptized by those who believe God re Christ. They would have an understanding. Paul makes a similar argument, though not related to baptismal regeneration, in 1 Cor re babies/parents.

You change the argument to be about the one performing the baptismal sacrament as if it was so important to their salvation. Even this argument, that skirts mine, has multiple problems. Do Catholics require Lutherans or Baptists to be baptized again when converting to Catholicism? They were originally baptized by one who believes different doctrine on salvation. According to you the one performing the sacrament is so important, so I would think they need to be baptized again, according to your logic. Further if Catholics thought as you state that the understanding just has to be in the one performing the sacrament, then why do they close communion to only those that hold the same doctrine as they do? The priest with the correct understanding should be able to dispense God's grace as he sees fit. The more the better.

Lastly I find it ironic that a Catholic argues so much that understanding salvation is so important to salvation. Explain how the church members for hundreds of years were edified and obtained understanding when much of their church services was with a foreign tongue.

You do have a point that knowledge per se doesn't save. I suspect most would agree with you. However, we must know about Christ.

Are you a universalist (everyone saved without any agreement with God)?

 

[Edmond Smith]

Ok, so I take you that you agree with me that you have to know something to be saved.

The Law and that God exist is something you already know instinctively. He places the law in our hearts.

Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another (Rom 2:15 KJV)

Romans 1 & 2 covers what your talking about.

Starting at 1:18, Before this Paul states he isn't ashamed of the Gospel and gladly goes about preaching it, for it leads to salvation.
At 18 he starts with "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness"

Other words, God is angry with those that sin and against sin itself. Not only that he's angry with those who sin and know they do, because you know the truth. Even to those that don't believe, you know it also.
v. 19 Backs up 18, by letting you know that God has already shown you the truth of the Word thru His law. This goes for atheist most expecially. You can say all day long you don't believe or that there is no evidence of God...wrong...the evidence is already in you.

So, to keep it short and simple. You already know, your conscience is pricked by the Holy Spirit and conviction sets in, and then you feel the draw of God, to repentance. Once you repent you then place your trust in Jesus, read His word and pray daily.

Babies, cannot be saved by baptismal. Nor by the person doing the baptismal. They have no knowledge of sin yet .

 

[Erose]

The Law and that God exist is something you already know instinctively. He places the law in our hearts.

Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another (Rom 2:15 KJV)

Romans 1 & 2 covers what your talking about.

Starting at 1:18, Before this Paul states he isn't ashamed of the Gospel and gladly goes about preaching it, for it leads to salvation.
At 18 he starts with "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness"

Other words, God is angry with those that sin and against sin itself. Not only that he's angry with those who sin and know they do, because you know the truth. Even to those that don't believe, you know it also.
v. 19 Backs up 18, by letting you know that God has already shown you the truth of the Word thru His law. This goes for atheist most expecially. You can say all day long you don't believe or that there is no evidence of God...wrong...the evidence is already in you.

So, to keep it short and simple. You already know, your conscience is pricked by the Holy Spirit and conviction sets in, and then you feel the draw of God, to repentance. Once you repent you then place your trust in Jesus, read His word and pray daily.

Babies, cannot be saved by baptismal. Nor by the person doing the baptismal. They have no knowledge of sin yet .

So that is a yes.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Your being saved from the wrath of God. That is what your being saved from.

What about sin and death?

Why is God saving us from Himself?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Edmond Smith]

What about sin and death?

Why is God saving us from Himself?

-CryptoLutheran

The Blood that Jesus shed, cleanses us from our sins. His resurrection conquers death.
He took the wrath that God would lay upon us when He was on the cross, Because God hates sin, he couldn't even look at His son for the he carried our sins to the cross, yet he never sinned. Those sins were ours, we deserved what he got, not Him.
If we were to get what we think we deserved from God, it would be Hell, because of our sins. But Christ sacrifice was satisfactory to God, Christ paid the final bill for us, when He said "It is finished".
When we sin, we sin directly against God. Sin isn't horizontal, it's a vertical affront against God. He hates it and he hates those who commit the sin. He says He hates the wicked's soul all the day long. Meaning, if you live with sin in your life and you've not repented and trusted Jesus as your Savior, and you continue to live in sin. You stack up the wrath of God against you. And at the time of judgment, that wrath will come down on you like you've never seen before.
The Word tells us. Woe is the man who is caught in the hands of an Angry God..
He save us from the wrath of God, as he cleanses us from our sins.

Would you like to face God, and Him angry with you? I know I don't.

 

[Edmond Smith]

So that is a yes.

As the scriptures show us. Yes, we have knowledge of God.
Because He puts it in us. But, does many acknowledge God. No, not everyone does. Many know about God yes, many don't know God.
We are to tell them about the Gospel and then let the Holy Spirit do His job and convict. And He will when God draws them nearer to Him. Everyone has a measure of faith. But not everyone claims it so. Many deny the righteousness placed within them, that being the knowledge of God.