I find it rather troubling that some churches wish to manufacture doctrine. It is not that doctrine is unimportant--far from it--but it is simply not within the church's purview to set this forth. Rather, it is the obligation of each individual believer to come to a proper understanding of biblical doctrine, according to the teachings of Scripture. The church (any church) is simply not the proper source for "True Doctrine" (to be blindly accepted by all parishioners).
Church doctrine is composed of the ideas that the members of that church agree are no longer to be tested. I have no ideas that I am unwilling to test; therefore, I cannot join a church.
Here are some examples that leap to mind: Which method of interpretation of the Book of Revelation (i.e. The Apocalypse in Catholic churches) is probably correct--and why? (Note: There is almost an infinite number of individual interpretations of the book; but only four methods of interpretation. They are as follows: (1) the poetic method, which is often embraced by liberal scholars; this method holds that there are no actual events being described in the book, but merely the certain victory of the Forces of God over the Forces of Satan; (2) the preterist method, which is sometimes embraced by a subset of conservative scholars; this method holds that the entirety of the book--yes, including even the much-ballyhooed "Battle of Armageddon"--was fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, by the armies of Titus, in AD 70; (3) the continuous historical method, which was embraced by most of the Reformers; this method holds that the book details the journey of the church from the first century until the Eschaton (or End Times); and (4) the futurist method, which is embraced by most televangelists; this method holds that the entire book (with the exception, early on, as concerning the Seven Churches of Asia) revolves around the Eschaton. May a woman teach over men? Some New Testament verses appear to say no (e.g. I Timothy 2:12). Or was this an accommodation toward the customs of that time and place, only--plus the fact that the women of Ephesus were quite uneducated? Was Phoebe a deaconess? In Romans 16:1, Phoebe is described as a diakonon of the church at Rome. This may either be transliterated, "deaconess"; or translated, "servant" (in a generic sense). Appeals to grammar will not solve this conundrum. It is purely a matter of theology--not grammar. May baptism include pouring and/or sprinkling? The problem here is twofold: (1) Paul referred to baptism as "a burial with Christ"; and (2) the verb, baptizo--which is transliterated as "baptize"--means to immerse, according to all the Greek-English lexicons that I have seen. These are just a few of the doctrinal questions to which I refer. But I think that it would be much better for each person to come to a conclusion individually, as regarding these (and other) matters...
True. But I do not believe that the church, itself, has any business imposing doctrine upon its individual members. (See paragraph #2 in the OP, above--which you quoted.)
What would be the purpose of a church, if not to help explain biblical meanings? But, that is why there are 1000s of denominations. People will go to one that matches what they believe personally.
Do you think dairy queen should "impose" ice cream to their customers? My point is, that's what they serve there. If you don't want ice cream, don't go tp the ice cream shop. If you don't like what their serving, go some place else, or start your own.
You seem to believe that I would prefer a church that proposes correct doctrine (at least, as I view it). But that is quite incorrect. Rather, I would much prefer that the church--any and all churches--set forth no doctrine (other than the fact, of course, that Jesus is the promised Messiah).
seems to me that by definition, ALL churches manufacture doctrine . what do you mean by "proper understanding"? Differing scriptural interpretations is why there are so many denominations of the abrahamic religions.
If parishoners blindly accept any doctrine, it's at their own loss. I wouldn't go to a church where teachers and the pastor didn't use the Bible as their source and teach it word for word, explain what it meant, and explain how we should apply it to our lives. If a teacher goes off the reservation on his explanation of the Bible, then we will call him on it. We often have group discussions on the text at hand and sometimes we agree to disagree on our interpretations of the minutia and try not to offend those who disagree with us while at the same time staying true to our beliefs. There are many subjects in modern life that are not specifically covered in the Bible. Guns, abortion, and drugs aren't covered in the Bible. Much of it we agree on, but we can't definitively say what is right or wrong, but only give our opinion and support it with as much tangential evidence as possible in the Bible and use common sense.
"Doctrine", is not a strictly theological term. Doctrine - Ideas held in common The Hells Angels have a doctrine. Black Lives Matter have a doctrine. We all have doctrines. We all have ideas held in common with others. 'Don't murder, that's a' doctrine. 'Don't steal', is also a doctrine. Of course, even as popular as these two doctrines are, no doctrine is universal. If no one agrees with you about anything, ever, you have no doctrine. But, not even the devil, himself, has been able to pull that one off.
All doctrine is opinion. Which the OP is kinda trying to say. But then wants to have a church give just 1 opinion. So the OP is no better, he wants doctrine. But only the doctrine he believes. Same as you. You just expand the doctrine. Every parishoner blindly accepts doctrine. For it's all on faith.
By that, I mean a correct understanding. (Yes, that may be debated; but this does not mean that there are no right or wrong answers.) I simply do not believe that the typical person in a church pew should have any less of a well-rounded theological understanding than the typical minister does. (The very same textbooks are available to all: exhaustive concordances; Greek New Testaments; interlinear New Testaments; commentaries; Greek-English lexicons; etc.)
The fact that Jesus is the promised Messiah is core doctrine--absent which, no church may reasonably call itself Christian. But I certainly do not support the church's setting forth doctrinal views as concerning lesser matters.
There are many reasons (imo) that can discount or refute your beliefs above, but I will just give you one. The premise first is that when Jesus speaks of "the Church" in this context (below), He is referring to the 12 apostles he ordained to be the authority to lead the faithful. And Peter was made the head (the pope). This link alone will settle the "Peter the Rock" arguments, but it is of great length and heavy reading so I would not bother. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/peter-the-rock But to keep this brief, here is the text that I believe alone tells us who is Holy Spirit led and who is given the authority to declare infallible doctrine. Matthew 16:17-19 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
"correct" is almost entirely subjective when dealing with "interpretation". Especially of allegory and metaphor. The reason ministers et.al. exist is precisely because their "flocks" are either not interested, inclined or capable of such intellectual endeavor.
"Doctrine" is irrelevant considering that each parishioner gets to choose whatever parts of the Bible(s) to ignore or adhere to. Religion itself is something of an a la cart menu of morality and ethics.
The quote, above, is obvious special pleading in favor of Catholicism. But I am not inclined to debate denominational preferences. Most Protestant churches, also, set forth doctrine. And I find this thoroughly unacceptable. Doctrine may be determined, by each individual, with the aid of technical works (e.g. an exhaustive concordance; a Bible dictionary; a Greek-English lexicon; an interlinear New Testament; a Greek-English New Testament; a commentary or two; etc.)
At the very least, one may determine the most probable interpretation, based upon the time and the place in question. I have no reason to believe that ministers have any higher IQs, on average, than their parishioners do. And those who are "not interested" are saying, effectively, that they are not at all interested in following the word of God--or else, that they trust their respective ministers' views with their very souls...
[QUOTE="tecoyah, post: 1068270927, member: 5145]Religion itself is something of an a la cart menu of morality and ethics.[/QUOTE] How do you figure that?
How do you figure that?[/QUOTE] You get to pick which parts to follow and which to dismiss. Sometimes people are so picky they create a new denomination or even make a whole new religion, Mormonism is an excellent example.
There is no pleading involved. The Scripture is pretty clear here. Jesus established His Church while He spoke to Peter and the apostles. Now if you want to debate the veracity or definition of that, fine. But that has been settled and reasoned since the time of the apostles for most theologians and witnesses. And more than enough great saints have validated these teachings through their inspired words and through the miracles God granted them to further demonstrate their authenticity. This is not a matter of preference. It is a matter of authority given to a hierarchical body ordained and established by Jesus Christ. And the most critical and core dogmas of the Catholic Church are established in the earliest centuries and earliest councils. The Bible was not fully adopted until the 4th century. Yes, one person can start their own church and teach whatever they want. Yes, so does the Catholic Church as it were. But we have enough to deal with in our own camp and trials not to take issue with theirs. What does "may be determined" mean? God is not a God of confusion whose core dogmas and doctrines have been revealed and taught for 2,000 years where we now find out we were dead wrong all along thanks to the new found opinion of some individual.
Those who wish to embrace some parts, while cavalierly dismissing others, should either (1) not label themselves "Christians," as that is disingenuous; or (2) push for a different canon of Scripture (as Luther actually did).
