Is it OK to question church doctrine?

[Benadam]

No, the act of accepting the word happened before they searched the scriptures. The scriptures supported the oral tradition they heard from Paul. The Bereans didn't reject the teaching authority of Paul then search the scriptures to prove him wrong.To be like them you have to accept that there exists an authority to interpret scriptures.

The Bereans demonstrate that the truth must be approached as possible to have any hope of receiving it or finding validation for it in scriptures.[ /QUOTE] I regret writing the gray text and apologize for being rude to you. Sincerely Marv.

 

[TMS]

We know from the history of the church that the first churches after Christ were called Tne Way, and those churches were very different from our church today. We also know there was a tremendous change in the accepted way church members were to live after Constantine called the Nicene Council. Since that time the leadership of the church changed, and so did the church.

Is it OK to check on these changes and compare them with scripture or should be simply know that good men have done this already and go by what they decided?

We are faced with another change in the church brought on by the deep sea scrolls. They opened up knowledge of the times before Christ that had been lost over time, bringing about better understanding of the old testament. Some scholars have used this information as a better understanding of Christ. It is called the roots movement and accused of being a movement to advocate going back to how the world was before Christ came rather than a movement to better understand Christ. We know Christ changed some things, do they accept that or is it a movement to not accept Christ. One part of this discussion would be to look at the facts of this and determine what is correct.

Do you think it is best to leave everything alone, trust how it has been for years or is it best to go to scripture with our questions?

Its a good question.
And there is times when we shouldn't question things, things that God has not revealed to us for our good, and things that are beyond our comprehension. We are the created being and God is almighty, so we need to respect this.
But when it comes to questioning the doctrines that a church teaches..... Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Sola scriptura (by scripture alone in English) is held by some Protestant Christian denominations that the Christian scriptures are the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.

Romans 10:17 “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” The inspired Word of God establishes and builds our faith. It is our firm foundation, and as we sincerely study it, our confidence in God and His Word will grow. “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33). He is, however, the “author and finisher of our faith” (Hebrews 12:2); thus a characteristic of His Word is that it builds our faith.

2 Timothy 3:16: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”

 

[Benadam]

No, the act of accepting the word happened before they searched the scriptures. The scriptures supported the oral tradition they heard from Paul. The Bereans didn't reject the teaching authority of Paul then search the scriptures to prove him wrong. To be like them you have to accept that there exists an authority to interpret scriptures.

The Bereans demonstrate that the truth must be approached as possible to have any hope of receiving it or finding validation for it in scriptures.

@crossnote, I apologise for writing the grey text. That was rude of me. Marv.

 

[Blik]

What in Scripture tells you that the old covenant expresses God's eternal ways, or that it is not obsolete?


Fleshly black and white? What is that supposed to mean?

If you will read the Psalms, you find the character of the Lord. Everything the Lord does is an expression of those characteristics. This God who is explained to us gave us scripture, and that scripture is an expression of those characteristics. To say that there is an exemption to that, that the old covenant is not of God is not in scripture. We are told some things of the old covenant is of no use to us any more, they are obsolete. That is scripture. But to say the old covenant is all wrong, God made a mistake in ever making that covenant, or that God has changed and is now a different God so it cancels the Psalms description of Him is not in scripture. The old covenant was made by our eternal God, not a God who makes mistakes and has to take back something He told us.

I can't imagine why the big fuss about that the old covenant is not obsolete but is cancelled, all completely null and void. It isn't in scripture. It doesn't mean that those who believe it is obsolete are not Christian, or that those who believe it is cancelled, null and void are not Christian. Or even that Christians aren't allowed to state what they think about it and why.

 

[Dino246]

If you will read the Psalms, you find the character of the Lord. Everything the Lord does is an expression of those characteristics. This God who is explained to us gave us scripture, and that scripture is an expression of those characteristics. To say that there is an exemption to that, that the old covenant is not of God is not in scripture. We are told some things of the old covenant is of no use to us any more, they are obsolete. That is scripture. But to say the old covenant is all wrong, God made a mistake in ever making that covenant, or that God has changed and is now a different God so it cancels the Psalms description of Him is not in scripture. The old covenant was made by our eternal God, not a God who makes mistakes and has to take back something He told us.

I can't imagine why the big fuss about that the old covenant is not obsolete but is cancelled, all completely null and void. It isn't in scripture. It doesn't mean that those who believe it is obsolete are not Christian, or that those who believe it is cancelled, null and void are not Christian. Or even that Christians aren't allowed to state what they think about it and why.

The words "null" and "void" are not used in Scripture with reference to the old covenant, but the words "obsolete" and "cancelled" are. So, by conflating those terms, you are confusing the issue.

Further, nobody else is saying that the old covenant is "all wrong" or that "God made a mistake". Those are your words. So you are really arguing with yourself.

Again, I would strongly recommend that you stop paraphrasing what others say, and start quoting them directly. When you paraphrase, you misrepresent what they mean, and you end up wasting your time arguing against statements that they have not made, as you do here.

 

[Blik]

Its a good question.
And there is times when we shouldn't question things, things that God has not revealed to us for our good, and things that are beyond our comprehension. We are the created being and God is almighty, so we need to respect this.
But when it comes to questioning the doctrines that a church teaches..... Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Sola scriptura (by scripture alone in English) is held by some Protestant Christian denominations that the Christian scriptures are the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.

Romans 10:17 “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” The inspired Word of God establishes and builds our faith. It is our firm foundation, and as we sincerely study it, our confidence in God and His Word will grow. “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33). He is, however, the “author and finisher of our faith” (Hebrews 12:2); thus a characteristic of His Word is that it builds our faith.

2 Timothy 3:16: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”

This would shake the very foundations of our established church, and even of the world. If we go only by scripture, then we could not add or take away from scripture. It would mean we must look at every addition that man has made to scripture. Even Sunday as the new Sabbath is an addition, and our whole world runs on that. Every Christian holiday is an addition to scripture or a basic change in a holiday spoken of in scripture, like Easter. Our major Christian holiday of Christmas was not suggested once in scripture, Scripture tells us that Christ's spiritual birth after He was crucified is the major Holiday. The new covenant would make the old one obsolete, but any part of it that is not obsolete would still be in effect. We would have to know the old covenant didn't promise salvation for works as part of its promises of blessings.

Surely we are allowed to believe in these things, as long as we stay true to the gospel. We can have the spirit of the Lord within us and still go along with the additions to doctrine man has made.

 

[Blik]

The words "null" and "void" are not used in Scripture with reference to the old covenant, but the words "obsolete" and "cancelled" are. So, by conflating those terms, you are confusing the issue.

Further, nobody else is saying that the old covenant is "all wrong" or that "God made a mistake". Those are your words. So you are really arguing with yourself.

Again, I would strongly recommend that you stop paraphrasing what others say, and start quoting them directly. When you paraphrase, you misrepresent what they mean, and you end up wasting your time arguing against statements that they have not made, as you do here.

As I studied this I didn't see the word cancelled, I will look it up and then need to study some more.

I find it hard to believe that we shouldn't consider all scripture as from a Holy God, not a God who should apologize for his mistakes.

I so so so wish you were able to speak of scripture from a scripture viewpoint and not in order to put people down. You are always going on and on about this paraphrasing. You would think that if a person feels they are misunderstood they wouldn't go on the attack about it, but explain themselves. Just attacking is so crude. I guess I shouldn't defend myself from you, or I attack too.

 

[Benadam]

not a God who should apologize for his mistakes.

Blik, I don't think anyone here would write or even think that.

 

[crossnote]

No, the act of accepting the word happened before they searched the scriptures

They had believed the Old Testament and used it as a standard to test Paul's teaching.

The scriptures supported the oral tradition they heard from Paul.

Oral Tradition??
Galatians 1:1 (NASB) Paul, an apostle (not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead),
Galatians 1:11-12 (NASB) For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

You never addressed my point of your emphasis of the subjective compared to God's objective Word.

 

[Blain]

We know from the history of the church that the first churches after Christ were called Tne Way, and those churches were very different from our church today. We also know there was a tremendous change in the accepted way church members were to live after Constantine called the Nicene Council. Since that time the leadership of the church changed, and so did the church.

Is it OK to check on these changes and compare them with scripture or should be simply know that good men have done this already and go by what they decided?

We are faced with another change in the church brought on by the deep sea scrolls. They opened up knowledge of the times before Christ that had been lost over time, bringing about better understanding of the old testament. Some scholars have used this information as a better understanding of Christ. It is called the roots movement and accused of being a movement to advocate going back to how the world was before Christ came rather than a movement to better understand Christ. We know Christ changed some things, do they accept that or is it a movement to not accept Christ. One part of this discussion would be to look at the facts of this and determine what is correct.

Do you think it is best to leave everything alone, trust how it has been for years or is it best to go to scripture with our questions?

Well in all honesty I don't know much about Constantine but quiostining church doctrine in these days is sadlt very vital because since the first church the gopsel has been deluded and corrupted the truth is so hard to tell from what is false these days that it requires great discernemnt and bible study to know the difference.
The way I see it if we don't qurestion church docrtine we are not seeking the truth but as for how one can discern the truth from the very similar lies it seems study is not enough those who know his voice know the spirit confirms the spirit and what I love about the spirit is that it is not the same as interpretation you just have this sense of knowing inside

 

[Blik]

Blik, I don't think anyone here would write or even think that.

I get so bewildered when something the Lord has put in scripture is held up for ridicule, or that the Lord now cancelled what he told us.

Over these 6,000 plus years there is changes, but the rule I give myself is that there is an eternity, a sameness, an unchangeableness to all scripture and I need to find that. So I use the new covenant as I read scripture. It is difficult for me to follow the idea that Christ made a new world, or God changed.

To me the priesthood tells of Christ, our priest. Not mixing fabrics is to keep the word pure. No pork or animals that feed on garbage is to let us know not to feed our minds garbage. It seems to me there is truth in all scripture, we are to find it.

 

[Blik]

Well in all honesty I don't know much about Constantine but quiostining church doctrine in these days is sadlt very vital because since the first church the gopsel has been deluded and corrupted the truth is so hard to tell from what is false these days that it requires great discernemnt and bible study to know the difference.
The way I see it if we don't qurestion church docrtine we are not seeking the truth but as for how one can discern the truth from the very similar lies it seems study is not enough those who know his voice know the spirit confirms the spirit and what I love about the spirit is that it is not the same as interpretation you just have this sense of knowing inside

Such truth in this. Study is so necessary so we can grow, but that quiet time with the Lord guides us to our study, to the truth of the Lord.

I have a prayer shawl, and when I use it over my head it closes out the literal world and I am alone under that shawl that is dedicated to Christ, alone with my Lord.

 

[Blain]

I get so bewildered when something the Lord has put in scripture is held up for ridicule, or that the Lord now cancelled what he told us.

Over these 6,000 plus years there is changes, but the rule I give myself is that there is an eternity, a sameness, an unchangeableness to all scripture and I need to find that. So I use the new covenant as I read scripture. It is difficult for me to follow the idea that Christ made a new world, or God changed.

To me the priesthood tells of Christ, our priest. Not mixing fabrics is to keep the word pure. No pork or animals that feed on garbage is to let us know not to feed our minds garbage. It seems to me there is truth in all scripture, we are to find it.

At the very least disagrements don't discount the truth. I think what saddens my heart most of all is that the the enemy uses disagreements to hide the truth and these days many claim know the turth and they can show all the scripture to prove it but as I said before the spirit confirms the spirit

this is why more than increasing our knowledge and understanding of the scriptures I always say to deepen and increase our love and bond with him because the deeper we go in that the more more in love with him the more we fall in love with him the more the voice of the spirit

 

[Benadam]

They had believed the Old Testament and used it as a standard to test Paul's teaching.

Oral Tradition??
Galatians 1:1 (NASB) Paul, an apostle (not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead),
Galatians 1:11-12 (NASB) For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

You never addressed my point of your emphasis of the subjective compared to God's objective Word.

It wasn't subjective. I didnt have the mental disposition of the Bereans in mind when I Bolded what Paul was emphasizing. The Thessalonicans rejected the word that they heard Paul speaking. No reason to validate this new teaching authority. The Bereans received the word spoken by Paul. They have a reason to see if Paul's teaching is an believable interpretation of scripture. What they were really concerned with was if they could abandon the rabbi's teaching and what they believed before. They definitely weren't deciding if it fit their personal interpretation. Paul had that internal struggle of religious authority in mind . But he spoke the word and he knew it. That's what Paul is emphasizing. The use of scriptures is a secondary highlight here.

 

[calibob]

It wasn't subjective. I didnt have the mental disposition of the Bereans in mind when I Bolded what Paul was emphasizing. The Thessalonicans rejected the word that they heard Paul speaking. No reason to validate this new teaching authority. The Bereans received the word spoken by Paul. They have a reason to see if Paul's teaching is an believable interpretation of scripture. What they were really concerned with was if they could abandon the rabbi's teaching and what they believed before. They definitely weren't deciding if it fit their personal interpretation. Paul had that internal struggle of religious authority in mind . But he spoke the word and he knew it. That's what Paul is emphasizing. The use of scriptures is a secondary highlight here.

Let's not forget that before Paul was the Lords disciple to the Gentiles he was a Pharisee named Saul of Tarsus. He knew the OT backwards and forwards (so to speak) I trust and depend on every word that he wrote.

 

[Blik]

At the very least disagrements don't discount the truth. I think what saddens my heart most of all is that the the enemy uses disagreements to hide the truth and these days many claim know the turth and they can show all the scripture to prove it but as I said before the spirit confirms the spirit

this is why more than increasing our knowledge and understanding of the scriptures I always say to deepen and increase our love and bond with him because the deeper we go in that the more more in love with him the more we fall in love with him the more the voice of the spirit

This site is so wonderful to hear how others think of scripture, the sharing of those who love the Lord. Disagreements can help us see clearer. If we disagree, it helps us check ourselves. But only when there is love, and there is so little love expressed. To disagree is to fight so often, and the slams given to other Christians are unbelievable.

Take the Sabbath. There is a disagreement over the Sabbath, even though the Lord accepts both sides if they are convinced and it is for Christ. But the fights and slams over this disagreement are horrid. It is so wonderful to compare what we think about it with other Christians. Yet for many, any discussion of it seems to take away the love Christians receive in their hearts from the Holy Spirit.

 

[Benadam]

Let's not forget that before Paul was the Lords disciple to the Gentiles he was a Pharisee named Saul of Tarsus. He knew the OT backwards and forwards (so to speak) I trust and depend on every word that he wrote.

His Instructor was Rabbi Gamaliel who advised the Jewish council concerning the Christian sect; If it's false it will die on it's own. If it's from God there is nothing that will stop it. Definitely a voice of reason and was famous for his wisdom.

 

[Benadam]

is difficult for me to follow the idea that Christ made a new world, or God changed.

You mentioned the importance of eternity and unity of the whole of Salvation history. When Jesus was conceived eternity entered time and history. In Him we enter a world that is eternal. For Him the world never ends.
No more seven day creation it will in an instant, when the elements of this world burn up in the light of the New Day, give way to the eternal day. Because when Our Saviour came, eternity entered time and history. Jesus changed the world by His Presence.

 

[Nebuchadnezzer]

We know from the history of the church that the first churches after Christ were called Tne Way, and those churches were very different from our church today. We also know there was a tremendous change in the accepted way church members were to live after Constantine called the Nicene Council. Since that time the leadership of the church changed, and so did the church.

Is it OK to check on these changes and compare them with scripture or should be simply know that good men have done this already and go by what they decided?

We are faced with another change in the church brought on by the deep sea scrolls. They opened up knowledge of the times before Christ that had been lost over time, bringing about better understanding of the old testament. Some scholars have used this information as a better understanding of Christ. It is called the roots movement and accused of being a movement to advocate going back to how the world was before Christ came rather than a movement to better understand Christ. We know Christ changed some things, do they accept that or is it a movement to not accept Christ. One part of this discussion would be to look at the facts of this and determine what is correct.

Do you think it is best to leave everything alone, trust how it has been for years or is it best to go to scripture with our questions?

It depends on what church or Church you belong to.

If you belong to the Church, then no.
If you belong to the church, then yes, because you do not belong to the Church.

Do you belong to the Church or church? People belong to one or the other.

The Church has many tentacles. These tentacles are more far reaching then most realize I feel.

 

[Dino246]

As I studied this I didn't see the word cancelled, I will look it up and then need to study some more.

"Cancelled" appears in Colossians 2:14, at least in some translations.

I find it hard to believe that we shouldn't consider all scripture as from a Holy God, not a God who should apologize for his mistakes.

Again, where are you seeing the idea that we have "a God who should apologize for his mistakes"?