Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Discussion > Religion & Philosophy
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Religion & Philosophy Discuss The church and doctrine at the General Discussion; I find it rather troubling that some churches wish to manufacture doctrine. It is not that doctrine is unimportant--far from ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 11-11-2017, 08:19 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,145
Thanks: 9,484
Thanked 3,673 Times in 2,408 Posts
Default The church and doctrine

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).
__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to pjohns For This Useful Post:
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 11-11-2017, 08:39 PM
Lollie's Avatar
Elle qui tolère Trump
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Defiance Ohio
Gender: Female
Posts: 18,075
Thanks: 14,716
Thanked 13,845 Times in 8,500 Posts
Default Re: The church and doctrine

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjohns View Post
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).
I've come to understand Catholicism vs any other church I've attended over the years.
The Catholic church is heavy on Bible in the mass because of the readings only because it's part of the order of the liturgy.
I do pray the rosary now and again.
Christian Science readings feed me when I need strength during hard times.
I understand church and doctrine as I've been indoctrinated from many places since I was young enough to try to understand it.
__________________
Everyone feels benevolent if nothing happens to be annoying him at the moment.
- C.S. Lewis
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 11-12-2017, 09:54 AM
Bat Bat is offline
Square Root Of Pi
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,397
Thanks: 62
Thanked 921 Times in 554 Posts
Default Re: The church and doctrine

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjohns View Post
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).
The bible itself is doctrine.
Different churches interpret that doctrine as they will.
It is still biblical doctrine.
__________________
Slew flatten lueble istan belk weas bi icktal.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bat For This Useful Post:
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 11-12-2017, 12:21 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,927
Thanks: 8,454
Thanked 6,969 Times in 4,221 Posts
Default Re: The church and doctrine

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjohns View Post
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).
The obvious question then is why do you go to church?
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 11-13-2017, 01:15 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,145
Thanks: 9,484
Thanked 3,673 Times in 2,408 Posts
Default Re: The church and doctrine

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
The obvious question then is why do you go to church?
For probably over 45 years, I did not. But my wife (we married in January of 2016, after each losing our previous spouses to death) wishes to go; so we do.

I often debate our pastor about a number of things, by e-mail. (Sometimes it is a mere discussion, as I would like to get his opinion--and the reasons for it--as regarding some matters that may easily be interpreted in different ways.)

In the 1970s (when I previously attended church), I frequently debated the elders about various points of doctrine. (It was a quite fundamentalist church--eventually, it became much too much so for my taste--but I have never been bashful about speaking my mind.)
__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 11-13-2017, 07:06 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,145
Thanks: 9,484
Thanked 3,673 Times in 2,408 Posts
Default Re: The church and doctrine

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...
__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 11-13-2017, 07:43 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 75,923
Thanks: 53,892
Thanked 25,654 Times in 18,259 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: The church and doctrine

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjohns View Post

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.
baptism is not necessary unless you feel that it is


Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. John 5:24


Romans 14:1
Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on his opinions.
__________________

I'd like to thank my manager, my addiction, my dead dog Frank, and Jesus.
heard in passing
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 11-13-2017, 08:14 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,927
Thanks: 8,454
Thanked 6,969 Times in 4,221 Posts
Default Re: The church and doctrine

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
baptism is not necessary unless you feel that it is


Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. John 5:24


Romans 14:1
Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on his opinions.
Nothing in religion is necessary unless you feel it is.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 11-13-2017, 08:16 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 75,923
Thanks: 53,892
Thanked 25,654 Times in 18,259 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: The church and doctrine

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
Nothing in religion is necessary unless you feel it is.
I separate what we call "religion" today from faith in God.
But yes you have free will as do I.
__________________

I'd like to thank my manager, my addiction, my dead dog Frank, and Jesus.
heard in passing
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 11-13-2017, 08:37 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,145
Thanks: 9,484
Thanked 3,673 Times in 2,408 Posts
Default Re: The church and doctrine

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
baptism is not necessary unless you feel that it is


Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. John 5:24


Romans 14:1
Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on his opinions.
Is this not off-topic?

I was not speaking of the question as to whether baptism is necessary to salvation; but rather, to the question of what truly comprises the act.
__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
and, church, doctrine, the

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0