Does Doctrine Influence Scripture?

[Erose]

Jump to conclusions much? And put words in people's mouths?

If you have a question ask. Don't make assumptions

Nope, it's actually the correct conclusion assessed from your comments.

 

[Erose]

So what is the Aramaic word then. We can look it up together?

It's ABBA.

 

[Mark51]

Well done! I agree!

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Lastly, I just want all to admit that there is a bias that all doctrine trained posses.

Do you still think this?
OR
Want everyone to verify/ question / show whether or not >

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?

 

[98cwitr]

Voted no: The reciprocal is true. Scripture influences doctrine, but not the other way around.

 

[Haipule]

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?

I had no idea how much manipulation of Scripture had to occur in order to teach any theological prejudice.

When I started translating, I couldn't even believe how badly the English bible has been translated and how much it is manipulated! And they went to school to learn how to suck so bad!

But we live in a time where pastors don't study the Greek or the Greek Scriptures(or Hebrew/Aramaic). Everything they say is just a hand me down perpetuated in seminary for thousands of years.

Yet, if we do not challenge like good Bureans then, we are then self deceived without excuse. We are told not to quench but to challenge.

Yet, someone will say, "Holy Spirit translation", "spiritual gift" and even "Holy Spirit". Yet, someone disagrees with another's doctrine and that another disagrees with that someone's doctrine and both claim the same "Spirit"! Hello!

 

[bcbsr]

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?

Of course it does. One either interprets scripture in light of scripture, or interprets scripture in light of their preconceived notions, and in this case in light of denominational dogma.

That's why I recommend Christians be Berean in mindset - interpreting scripture in light of scripture. Yes there will still be disagreements, but they won't be "My post-Biblical theologian is greater than your post-Biblical theologian".

 

[bcbsr]

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?

Going through this thread it is interesting to note, though not unexpected, that the main people who argue for interpretation based upon one's denomination allegiance versus interpreting scripture based on scripture are Catholics.

They often speak of "The Church" by which they mean their denomination. And while I along with many of us can prove with scripture The Catholic Church is not God's Church, they typically don't allow themselves to entertain such a notion as it would question their very foundational presumption.

 

[fhansen]

Going through this thread it is interesting to note, though not unexpected, that the main people who argue for interpretation based upon one's denomination allegiance versus interpreting scripture based on scripture are Catholics.

They often speak of "The Church" by which they mean their denomination. And while I along with many of us can prove with scripture The Catholic Church is not God's Church, they typically don't allow themselves to entertain such a notion as it would question their very foundational presumption.

The real point is that without the input of "The Church" regardless of how one identifies that entity, our interpretations of Scripture are private, our theology often just best-guess, even while all such interpreters believe themselves "to be Berean in mindset", "interpreting scripture in light of scripture" even as they disagree between each other, often seriously, with their interpretations.

And the truth is that the Bereans didn't come up with the Good News, the gospel, on their own, rather they had to hear that message from outside, from a particular group of people who had received and bore it. Then they compared what they heard to OT writings.

 

[Haipule]

The real point is that without the input of "The Church" regardless of how one identifies that entity, our interpretations of Scripture are private, our theology often just best-guess, even while all such interpreters believe themselves "to be Berean in mindset", "interpreting scripture in light of scripture" even as they disagree between each other, often seriously, with their interpretations.

And the truth is that the Bereans didn't come up with the Good News, the gospel, on their own, rather they had to hear that message from outside, from a particular group of people who had received and bore it. Then they compared what they heard to OT writings.

IF, we honor the 1st century Greek, in a 1st century mind-set in it's most basic autographed grammatical inflection actually penned by the authors then, it is NOT a matter of interpretation but rather, "show and tell"!

 

[fhansen]

IF, we honor the 1st century Greek, in a 1st century mind-set in it's most basic autographed grammatical inflection actually penned by the authors then, it is NOT a matter of interpretation but rather, "show and tell"!

Sure, thank you, "IF" that were even possible with any kind of certainty. It'd be nice though.

 

[Haipule]

Sure, thank you, "IF" that were even possible with any kind of certainty. It'd be nice though.

I do it all the time! Read my book: Wake Up Call: William McCoy. It has been very nice to escape theological nonsense--talk about being freed!

I did not challenge theology to disprove God! Rather, to expose erroneous theology so I could show and tell God's promised life to you!

The Word of God is completely awesome in the autographed grammatical inflections that the authors actually penned!

Yet, that awesomeness is hidden by their theologies and theological mindset. Apparently, they want "religion" and not life! Jesus had the same problem in His day.

The English bible has been "interpreted" to teach you theologies of ALL kinds! And all of that, with complete disregard for the simplicity of the authors simple to understand autographed language and inflection. They were writing to the illiterate, and not God!

Yet, somehow, the hierarchy of the church is attempting to put us all on some religious guilt trips through erroneous concepts like: sin, repentance, salvation, Holy Spirit, spirituality, which is nothing more then esoteric nonsense with stupid comments like, "I pray in tongues". "These things are only 'spiritually' discerned", blah, blah, blah as if I couldn't, instantly, provide them with the proper use of the Greek and it's inflection--which they know NOTHING about!

So, they tell me that, " these things are only 'spiritually' discerned and that , "I'm 'just' too fleshly to understand". None of them could teach ANYTHING Paul said in the book of Romans to save their sorry lives!

Crock of Crapola!

 

[Wordkeeper]

The real point is that without the input of "The Church" regardless of how one identifies that entity, our interpretations of Scripture are private, our theology often just best-guess, even while all such interpreters believe themselves "to be Berean in mindset", "interpreting scripture in light of scripture" even as they disagree between each other, often seriously, with their interpretations.

And the truth is that the Bereans didn't come up with the Good News, the gospel, on their own, rather they had to hear that message from outside, from a particular group of people who had received and bore it. Then they compared what they heard to OT writings.

Wisdom is proven right by all her children,

The Message translates this as, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating".

If the local church taught the right doctrine, there would be changes in the lives of its attendees.

 

[fhansen]

Wisdom is proven right by all her children,

The Message translates this as, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating".

If the local church taught the right doctrine, there would be changes in the lives of its attendees.

Hey the same could be said about anyone in Christianity. As has been famously said, it'd be good but no one's tried it yet.

And yet...that is sooo presumptuous. Centuries of caring for the poor and sick, hospitals, schools, and the university system, huge quantities of volunteer time and money spent for charitable work, spreading the good news to a dark and hopeless world, loving ones enemy rather than vanquishing him, responding to the light, to a great ideal that was given to the world. My semi-literate grandmother from the foothills of the Italian Alps had more faith than most of the people I meet nowadays regardless of denomination, even with all their "biblical literacy".

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

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?

Are you looking for Ekklesia who follow Jesus ? Who believe Jesus ?

 

[Guojing]

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?

You are correct there. However, there will be people who will insist that they are only "taught by the Holy Spirit".

Its hard for some to accept that they are interpreting the Bible based on how they were taught, whether thru church or thru the things they read or view.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

And those who Jesus Speaks to, who are His sheep, Hear His voice, and follow Him.