The church and doctrine

[pjohns]

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).

[Kacper]

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).

If the congregation does not agree with the doctrine of their church, they are free to leave that congregation and find a faith home more to their liking. Church/faith is a voluntary undertaking. Nobody is forcing the members to accept anything.

[Standing Wolf]

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 think there are both positive and negative aspects to setting up a hierarchy of church leaders to interpret the will of God and establish a set of doctrinal beliefs. One of the negative aspects is, as you say, that man's interests, prejudices and imagination can cause those fallible human beings to end up manufacturing what they are ostensibly only interpreting, and substituting heir own will for the will of God. One of the positive aspects is that in doing so the church is not saying, in effect, "There's an all-powerful, all-seeing God out there who wants you to act according to his will and direction, and it's up to each of you to figure out what His will and direction is and act accordingly. Good luck!"

[Mister D]

The funny thing is that there is a direct historical connection between the Protestant demand for individual interpretation, secularism and finally atheism.

I also find it rather troubling that fundamentalist Protestants worship a book likely printed in China.

[Standing Wolf]

The funny thing is that there is a direct historical connection between the Protestant demand for individual interpretation, secularism and finally atheism.

I also find it rather troubling that fundamentalist Protestants worship a book likely printed in China.

There is actually very little difference between the traditional Catholic and Protestant views of the primacy of the individual's relationship with God and the importance of basing one's actions on that personal relationship. That is the teaching. In actual practice, however, most Protestant denominations are no less insistent on compliance with established church doctrine than is the Catholic Church. It may appear from the outside that non-Catholic Christians are "permitted" to believe and practice as they see fit, but that is very far from true.

[Mister D]

There is actually very little difference between the traditional Catholic and Protestant views of the primacy of the individual's relationship with God and the importance of basing one's actions on that personal relationship. That is the teaching. In actual practice, however, most Protestant denominations are no less insistent on compliance with established church doctrine than is the Catholic Church. It may appear from the outside that non-Catholic Christians are "permitted" to believe and practice as they see fit, but that is very far from true.

We're not talking about the individual's relationship with God. We're talking about private interpretation. There is a fundamental difference with regard to interpretation and the fact that literally tens of thousands of Christian sects have appeared since the Reformation suggests it it indeed true that private interpretation has led to the gradual dissolution of a common Christian culture and ultimately to the appearance of "spiritual" folks like yourself.

[Standing Wolf]

Another potentially interesting thread derailed by somebody's need to make it personal.

[Chris]

'tweren't nothing personal personal but just that that's the nature of Protestantism that it leads to personal interpretations of the Bible and that greatly influenced the rise of secularism and moral relativism. The RCC, as I understand it, provided the seeds on individualism but also maintained a universality of interpretation. With each person free to interpret, reason, experiment, and imagine, universality is lost by the time you get to Hume and Kant and Hegel.

[Mister D]

Another potentially interesting thread derailed by somebody's need to make it personal.

Personal? I'm describing a phenomenon and helping you understand it.

[Standing Wolf]

Personal? I'm describing a phenomenon and helping you understand it.

"...'spiritual' folks like yourself"? No, that isn't personal at all, is it?

I am simply questioning your apparent thesis that Luther's (and others') attempts at reforming the abuses, excesses and errors of the Catholic hierarchy has led directly to spiritual confusion, atheism and whatever other evils you see arising from the idea of "private interpretation". I pointed out that there are potentially both positive and negative results to be expected from a church authority taking a hard line when it comes to how exactly its members are expected to toe the line doctrinally. I believe I am taking a rational and balanced view of the matter and you are not.