The word, "Doctrine"

[Willie T]

But that has always been the problem...those old men with white beards that decide for everyone else for the rest of time, and make ridged rules, what is doctrine and what is not true teaching.

What makes them any more right than your interpretation of the scriptures?
God says that the Holy Spirit is THE Teacher...
Were they so much more holy? I think not.

And you, Helen, correctly read the exact intent of the OP.

 

[Helen]

And you, Helen, correctly read the exact intent of the OP.

Whoops, I still forgot to change my word from "white breads" to white BEARDS !!
Even though someone "caught it" and told me about it. LOL

 

[brakelite]

For me, the initial emphasis of the OP was not to reduce the importance of doctrine...that is teaching and truth...but the altered focus given the word in todays society. I am not sure that the KJV is wrong in using the word...in the 16th century it meant teaching, and everyone understood it as such, so don't blame the KJV. Society, outside of Christianity, is what has given the word doctrine a bad rap. The term indoctrinate, which does not appear in scripture, is indeed a poor word to use for teaching...but we don't do that do we? Indoctrinate? Propagandise? The world would have us believe we do, but I would take no notice of what the world tells us about ourselves when using their own linguistic nuances to suit their biases. The truth is, truth matters. Good sound teaching...sound doctrine...matters. Notwithstanding modern grammatical changes in language and understanding.
The same can be said for fundamentalism. Nothing wrong with fundamentals. Fundamentals are the foundation...the base...upon which everything else is built. Because society chooses to use the term in a derogatory manner to mean extreme terrorism, and for governments to lay a hold of that term making it possible for fundamentalist Christians (those who believe in scripture, believe in the atonement of Christ, believe in the second coming etc...the fundamentals) to be possible targets for oppression in the future simple because they are fundamentalists, thus terrorists, does not reduce one iota of the importance of truth, and the importance of teaching it. For those who think doctrine doesn't matter, and that to be a "fundie" is a bad thing, I say tough.
Titus 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught (instructed), that he may be able by sound (Full well being...Metaph.error free) doctrine (Teaching/instruction) both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers (those that contradict).
Col.1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching (instructing...NOT INDOCTRINATING) every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:
Col.3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching (instructing) and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

Instructing...teaching...NOT propagandizing, brainwashing, indoctrinating. The world can use those terms if they wish, let them. But do NOT allow them to dissuade you from doing what is right and correct in heralding (preaching) the good news (gospel) and instructing (teaching) others in all wisdom and truth.

 

[Willie T]

For me, the initial emphasis of the OP was not to reduce the importance of doctrine...that is teaching and truth...but the altered focus given the word in todays society. I am not sure that the KJV is wrong in using the word...in the 16th century it meant teaching, and everyone understood it as such, so don't blame the KJV. Society, outside of Christianity, is what has given the word doctrine a bad rap. The term indoctrinate, which does not appear in scripture, is indeed a poor word to use for teaching...but we don't do that do we? Indoctrinate? Propagandise? The world would have us believe we do, but I would take no notice of what the world tells us about ourselves when using their own linguistic nuances to suit their biases. The truth is, truth matters. Good sound teaching...sound doctrine...matters. Notwithstanding modern grammatical changes in language and understanding.
The same can be said for fundamentalism. Nothing wrong with fundamentals. Fundamentals are the foundation...the base...upon which everything else is built. Because society chooses to use the term in a derogatory manner to mean extreme terrorism, and for governments to lay a hold of that term making it possible for fundamentalist Christians (those who believe in scripture, believe in the atonement of Christ, believe in the second coming etc...the fundamentals) to be possible targets for oppression in the future simple because they are fundamentalists, thus terrorists, does not reduce one iota of the importance of truth, and the importance of teaching it. For those who think doctrine doesn't matter, and that to be a "fundie" is a bad thing, I say tough.
Titus 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught (instructed), that he may be able by sound (Full well being...Metaph.error free) doctrine (Teaching/instruction) both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers (those that contradict).
Col.1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching (instructing...NOT INDOCTRINATING) every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:
Col.3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching (instructing) and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

Instructing...teaching...NOT propagandizing, brainwashing, indoctrinating. The world can use those terms if they wish, let them. But do NOT allow them to dissuade you from doing what is right and correct in heralding (preaching) the good news (gospel) and instructing (teaching) others in all wisdom and truth.

No, those in the 1st century did not "indoctrinate." Would that such had continued.

 

[brakelite]

No, those in the 1st century did not "indoctrinate." Would that such had continued.

Well, it did continue, and they won many converts through their sound teaching methods and example of love and freedom to dissent. But that branch of Christianity which turned to 'indoctrinating' became the dominant force and thrust aside the sound teaching methods of those she deemed 'heretics' (those who disagreed with her man-made doctrines and methods of indoctrinating...that is by coercion).

 

[farouk]

If it wasn't for Martin Luther and the like, the church would not be where it is. Of coarse they labeled heretics.

Ephesians 4 makes it so clear how important is sound doctrine.

 

[bbyrd009]

dogmatically assert a traditional belief-system

pls tell me someone sees the built-in oxymoron there?

I found this to be an interesting few words in a book that spoke of what Christianity is NOT.

In 1611 A.D., King James of England authorized what became known as the Authorized Version, better known as the King James Version, of an English translation of the Bible. The "Christian religion" of that day was still engaged in competing belief-systems.

King James hired translators to translate the Bible into English. The word for "teaching" in the English language of King James' time was "doctrine." The King James Version refers to the word "doctrine" 56 different times. But languages evolve, and the meanings of words change. So it is with the word "doctrine." Looking at a contemporary English dictionary you will discover that although "doctrine" used to mean "teaching" or "instruction," that definition is now regarded as "archaic" or "obsolete." What does the word "doctrine" mean in contemporary English? Webster's Collegiate Dictionary reads: "Doctrine a principle accepted by a body of believers or adherents to a philosophy or school; principles of knowledge or a system of belief." "Doctrinaire dictatorial or dogmatic." "Indoctrinate to imbue with a partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view or principle." Synonyms used for "indoctrinate" include "propagandize, program, brainwash, infect, instill, inculcate, etc." Is it any wonder that newer English translations tend to avoid the word "doctrine"? The New American Standard Bible, for example, uses the word "doctrine" only fourteen times, and even those are probably a carry-over of the traditionalism of ecclesiastical terminology. The Greek words, didache and didaskalia, should be consistently translated "teaching," except when reference is being made to "man-made doctrines" (Eph. 4:14; Col. 2:22; etc.)

In contemporary English language "doctrine" has come to mean "A traditional belief-system as interpreted and accepted by a particular group of people." "Doctrinaire" means "to dogmatically assert a traditional belief-system as interpreted and accepted by a particular group of people." "Indoctrinate" implies "to propagandize or brainwash others with this traditional belief-system as interpreted and accepted by a particular group of people."

Such a definition was most certainly not what the hearers intended when they listened to Jesus and "were astonished at His doctrine" (Luke 4:32 — KJV ). They were not "astonished at His traditional belief-system," rather they were "amazed at His teaching" (NASB). The teaching of Jesus was the extending, the offering, the demonstration of Himself His Life. His teaching was Life-teaching. The etymological root for the Greek word "teaching" had to do with "extending the hand" or "offering oneself." To demonstrate what is being taught; that is the way to teach Life!

The fundamentalism and evangelicalism that predominate in popular "Christian religion" in America today tend to key in on "doctrine" as belief-system. That may be the reason they often prefer to retain the King James Version, and interpret the use of the word "doctrine" throughout the New Testament as their particular brand of formulated and fixated belief-system. These religious doctrinarians continue to indoctrinate others and perpetuate the factious and fractious denominationalism of differing belief-systems. Americans, with their fierce individualism and concepts of personal freedom, have elevated denominationalism to an all-time high, a real "religious science", with thousands of religious denominations, divided by disputed doctrinal belief-systems. Those involved in "Christian religion" today still think that Christianity is essentially consent to a particular doctrinal belief-system.

This is, in fact, the definition of "fundamentalism," a grouping of people who has rigidly determined the "fundamentals" of their acceptable doctrinal belief-system. "Fundamentalism" is a word much used today. The newspapers and news reports are full of references to "Muslim fundamentalists" in Iran, Libya, Lebanon, Egypt, etc.; "Hindu fundamentalists" in Sri Lanka; "Christian fundamentalists" barging at and bombing abortion clinics in the United States. Have you ever noticed that fundamentalists always fight? Why is that? They feel they have an obligation to defend the particular way they have stacked all of their doctrinal blocks in their belief-system.

The fundamentalist "Christian religion" in general has allowed doctrine, their belief-system, to become the supreme issue. "Doctrine" becomes their basis of fellowship, acceptance, security, bonding, etc. It is a tragic misrepresentation of the Church when the basis of our commonality is calculated by doctrinal agreement, rather than the indwelling Lord Jesus Christ; when uniformity of doctrine is the primary issue instead of unity in Christ. How sad when much of what is called "Christian preaching" is but tirades against so-called "heretics" who do not stack the doctrinal fundamentals of their belief-system just like we do!

Doctrine has been deified in "Christian religion" today. Doctrine has become their " god." It is a gross form of idolatry when one's properly-aligned stack of doctrinal ideas is elevated and revered to the extent that it must be defended at all costs, even to the point of terrorism, even to the point of dying for it.

God alone is absolute and immutable. His attributes are exclusive to Himself. What God is, only God is. To attribute God's attributes to our doctrine and determine that our doctrine is absolute and unchangeable is to deify doctrine, and to engage in the absolutism that is indicative of fundamentalistic religion around the world.

The Scottish preacher and teacher, James S. Stewart, wrote these words: "Those who have succeeded in defining doctrine most closely, have lost Christ most completely."

Doctrines, belief-systems, will always be the focus of religion, but not of Christianity. Christianity is Christ! Jesus' teaching was about Himself. He is the essence of Christian teaching, contrary to what Buddha said about his religion.

In Christianity, TRUTH is a Person, Jesus Christ. "Truth" is not just propositional truth statements within a belief-system of doctrinal theology by which orthodoxy is rationalistically determined. Jesus Christ is Truth! Jesus Christ is our Life! He is so exclusively; there is no other Way! John 14:6 - "I AM the way, the truth and the life."

Christianity is not a belief-system. Christianity is Christ!

"facts all come with points of view" yeh?

 

[bbyrd009]

Now we have A DECEIVER (as in the OP) coming along and deceiving gullible Christians that doctrine is worthless and is not a part of Christianity.

what? dude are we even reading the same op? who said "doctrine is worthless?" certainly not willy bro. That are way out of line imo

 

[Enoch111]

what? dude are we even reading the same op? who said "doctrine is worthless?" certainly not willy bro. That are way out of line imo

Here is what this writer said: "Truth" is not just propositional truth statements within a belief-system of doctrinal theology by which orthodoxy is rationalistically determined.

You can interpret this as "doctrine is not truth, therefore it is worthless". And Christians don't determine doctrine "rationalistically". So there are a couple of lies right there.

This is another one of those deceivers who rejects Bible doctrine, and the apostle John said that many deceivers have gone out into the world. But for Paul, the first important item from Scripture was doctrine.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Jude calls the body of Christian doctrines "the faith which was once delivered to the saints", and tells Christians to earnestly contend for "the faith" because of these deceivers (who are very subtle).

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[marks]

Without the doctrines (teachings) of the Bible, well, I suppose not everyone holds the Bible in the same status I do. To me, It's teachings are what we can truly know about God.

Replace the teachings of the Bible - it's doctrines - with your own interpretations of your own perceptions of your own experiences, and you truly will come to something that is all your own.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Hi @Willie T ,

Maybe I misunderstood the point of the article you posted. If all you are trying to say is that we should stop using the word doctrine because it's come to mean something different from what it used to, OK, I don't mind saying teaching.

How it came across to me was against what I'll term Fundamentalism, and for the purpose if saying, "How can you say what God really said?"

But I never mind finding out I'm wrong about something, it just means I'm gaining.

Much love!

 

[bbyrd009]

You can interpret this as "doctrine is not truth, therefore it is worthless". And Christians don't determine doctrine "rationalistically". So there are a couple of lies right there.

i beg to disagree, and firmly believe that religion is the other side of the coin of politics, myself, but there are also certainly those who trust in traditional doctrine. Thank God for ppl who disagree

if you seek a king your religion will refelct it i guess

 

[prism]

Hear ye, hear ye! Let's get rid of all teaching/doctrine (that legalistic nasty thing) since Christianity is Christ.
Let's chuck Romans, Galatians, Hebrews etc., etc., and go into Christian mysticism...then to Rome, where we can blindly obey the Pope or any other cult leader. Pleeeeze.

 

[Philip James]

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours

Development of doctrine in the Church, was primarily in response to those who taught something contrary to the 'traditions' that were handed down from the apostles...
The Nicene creed being a prime example...

We reject the doctrine (teaching) of our fathers and mothers before us at our peril...

The Truth does not change...

You too! Are welcome to come to the wedding feast of the Lamb of God!

Peace be with you!

Christ IS risen!
Alleluia!

 

[Willie T]

Hi @Willie T ,

Maybe I misunderstood the point of the article you posted. If all you are trying to say is that we should stop using the word doctrine because it's come to mean something different from what it used to, OK, I don't mind saying teaching.

How it came across to me was against what I'll term Fundamentalism, and for the purpose if saying, "How can you say what God really said?"

But I never mind finding out I'm wrong about something, it just means I'm gaining.

Much love!

I think he was saying that far too many people may worship the writings (as the Jews do their Talmud) without really ever coming to know the author and experiencing Him living life through us.

 

[amadeus]

The Truth does not change...

It certainly does not, but who among us has a perfectly clear picture of exactly what Truth is? Many will correctly say that Truth is Jesus and so it is, but we have exactly the same problem in seeing His face clearly, do we not?

David wrote this:

"When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek." Prov 27:8

And the Apostle Paul wrote this:

"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." I Cor 13:12

What we must do is love that Truth even while it is not clearly seen and while it remains as a vision "through a glass, darkly".

Failure to do this will certainly result in our being deluded:

"And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:" II Thess 2:10-11

We must love it even when our vision of what it is and how it looks may remain unclear. We do live by faith as Paul says, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". Heb 11:1

 

[dorian37grey]

the doctrines of ....
ever notice all these examples are "after" the cross
please dont try to confuse the thief on the cross ; as he is already saved
could it be that " doctrine" as well as the word heresy is just man attempt to try and show why he is right?

ever see someone post a doctrine not trying to show themselves to be right ?

my view ; it either right ( as close as we know ) or its wrong (as close as we know) and most of the time to our preciseness is based on how must we have listen to the bible story ( not just the parts we have made doctrine

to willie t ; very good topic

 

[Willie T]

(It's long, but worth it)
Teaching vs. Indoctrinating Your Children
December 5, 2016 December 5, 2016 Editor's Pick
Written by unknown.

What is the difference between teaching and indoctrinating?

It’s a question that we don’t often think too deeply about, because the answer feels pretty obvious. It’s something bad that other people do to teach children falsehood before they know any better. Teaching is concerned with truth, and indoctrination is concerned with ridiculous dogma.

But from an objective perspective, it’s hard to tell who is doing the indoctrinating and who isn’t. Some feel like schools are indoctrinating children with Darwinian Evolution and atheism, while others feel that parents are indoctrinating their children with religious creationism. Perhaps the Patels are indoctrinating their children to Hinduism, or perhaps the Smiths are indoctrinating their children into Christianity. Perhaps both. One family’s children are being indoctrinated with liberal talking points, and another with conservative rhetoric.

With all these opportunities for indoctrination, it’s likely every family is doing it to some degree. Everyone wants to teach their kids the truth, but we’ll inevitably teach our children to believe things that are actually wrong. This thought has terrified me (in a vague, back-of-the-mind kind of way) for years. And I don’t think I’m the only one, either. I want my kids to be smarter than me, not saddled down with the same beliefs I’m too biased to critically analyze.

Is it Possible to Teach without Indoctrinating?
To get that answer, let’s figure out what the exact definition of indoctrination is. I looked around to see what various dictionaries said. Once upon a time, the words “education” and “indoctrination” were synonymous. But that’s not the way the word is generally used today. Here are a few of the more standard definitions:

• to teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs (Merriam-Webster)
  
  
• to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view. (Dictionary.com)
  
  
• teach doctrines to; teach uncritically (Vocabulary.com)
  
  
• to often repeat an idea or belief to someone in order to persuade them to accept it (Cambridge)
  
  
• teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically (Oxford)
  
  Almost all of these definitions include teaching, but with some extra caveats. It’s to teach to accept an idea uncritically, from a biased point of view. The Merriam-Webster definition includes being sheltered from other perspectives – only sources which support belief are used. So if we want to teach without indoctrinating, we should avoid or counteract these tendencies as we teach.
  
  How to Avoid Indoctrination
  The rest of this article will focus on how to avoid indoctrinating your children. If you are among those who is all for it, the following techniques will greatly undermine your efforts. However, it will also help immunize your children to others who would indoctrinate your children, so perhaps you’ll still come out ahead.
  
  Teaching Uncritically
  Teaching “uncritically” means to avoid and/or discourage the questioning of certain ideas. The best way to prevent this is to teach critical thinking. To me, critical thinking means two things:

1. Learning to recognize and eliminate fallacies and bias from your own thought, and
2. Believing something to the degree that evidence supports it.

To quote from another article, “It is a way of thinking in which you don’t simply accept all arguments and conclusions you are exposed to but rather have an attitude involving questioning such arguments and conclusions.” This is the kind of thing a lot of people don’t learn much about until college (if then), so how do we teach it to our kids?

The article linked above lists three core skills that you can help your children develop: Encourage and help your children develop curiosity, skepticism, and humility. Here are some specific things you can do.

• Tell your children silly things, but assert them as if they’re true. Support them with bad logic, and have the child figure out how/why it’s wrong.
  
  
• When you realize you were wrong about something, use the opportunity to show your kids that it’s OK to be wrong and everyone should keep learning.
  
  
• Critically analyze advertising, politics, and other forms of deceptive media with your children.
  
  
• Don’t tell your children that there’s anything they’re not allowed to question critically.
  
  
• Teach about specific types of fallacies, perhaps with the Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments.
  
  
• Every so often, use the Socratic Method with your children. The goal should be to teach them to think critically about their own beliefs and reveal complexity and nuance even with seemingly clear issues. It should not be used to simply disprove or intellectually intimidate your child.
  
  “Sheltered” Teaching
  Avoiding this aspect of indoctrination is perhaps the most straightforward of all. Rather than teaching about only one religion, one political philosophy, or one side of an ethical issue, seek out information, people, and experiences that will expose your children to other viewpoints. If you’re Democrats, watch a Republican debate or watch The O’Reilly Factor. Every so often, attend worship services for other religions. Take public transportation and talk with people you meet. Read books and watch good movies together that help children empathize with people in other cultures, with different beliefs.
  
  Biased Teaching
  Indoctrination involves teaching in a biased way. Unfortunately, there is no way to teach without bias. Everyone is biased, and most people aren’t aware of it. However, it’s possible to limit your bias by learning more about common biases.
  
  Of particular importance is Confirmation Bias, which is the tendency to seek out information that supports our pre-existing beliefs (because it makes us feel good), while feeling very uncomfortable with and avoiding information that contradicts those beliefs. This is what drives people to get news from sources biased toward their political beliefs, spend time on Facebook groups that reinforce their particular stance on an issue, and stops people from deeply investigating other religions.
  
  Limiting bias in teaching doesn’t mean you should withhold opinions on what is right and wrong. It does mean you should try to acknowledge those biases with your children and try harder to present opposing viewpoints in a fair manner.
  
  Conclusion
  A lot can be said on this subject. In fact, books have been written on it! If you are interested in more, I recommend the book Raising Freethinkers. While it is primarily written with a nonreligious audience in mind, its main focus is how to teach your children to be immune to indoctrination, and instead form their own well-supported beliefs. It’s full of practical advice.
  
  I’ll leave you with this fantastic quote:
  “Ideally, what should be said to every child, repeatedly, throughout his or her school life is something like this: ‘You are in the process of being indoctrinated. We have not yet evolved a system of education that is not a system of indoctrination. We are sorry, but it is the best we can do. What you are being taught here is an amalgam of current prejudice and the choices of this particular culture. The slightest look at history will show how impermanent these must be. You are being taught by people who have been able to accommodate themselves to a regime of thought laid down by their predecessors. It is a self-perpetuating system. Those of you who are more robust and individual than others will be encouraged to leave and find ways of educating yourself — educating your own judgments. Those that stay must remember, always, and all the time, that they are being moulded and patterned to fit into the narrow and particular needs of this particular society.” — from The Golden Notebook by Doris Lessing, Nobel Laureate in Literature
  
  Originally published at The Building Light.

 

[marks]

I think he was saying that far too many people may worship the writings (as the Jews do their Talmud) without really ever coming to know the author and experiencing Him living life through us.

I can't seem to separate knowing God from knowing the Bible. I know God through both my interactions with Him, but also the Bible, which actually goes above my own interactions with God.

For one thing, the Bible is a great part of God's voice to humanity, and He speaks to me very personally through it. God knew me when He wrote His Book, and I think it shows.

Another perhaps more important, I consider God's revelations through His prophets and apostles to be the test for my own ideas and imaginations, as that may be all they are.

Reminds me of those "The Bible as Literature" classes they used to have. I can't imagine anyone is doing That anymore!

Much love!

 

[Heart2Soul]

In my opinion the doctrines of God's Word has been twisted by man's religious interpretations and making it doctrines of men.....so doctrines has become a controversial issue between fellow Christians because of what their church "doctrine" supports as their core beliefs....and it really irks me when a church demands that you agree with their doctrine to be a member.