Why do these Doctrinal Disagreements Persist?

[Tcg]

.
There are three disagreements concerning Christian/Biblical doctrine that seem to be a perpetual issue amongst those who study the Bible.

1. The divinity of Jesus - A quick review of the threads created in TD&D reveal this is certainly a hot topic in that sub-forum. The issue quite simply is whether or not Jesus is God.

2. The nature of heaven - This refers to the final abode of those deemed worthy of eternal life. Some say it is a spriritual dwelling place where God and the saints will live. Others say the final destiny will be in "a new heaven and a new earth" as described in Revelation 21 and that God and the saints will live there together. One group claims it will involve a version of both of these. A spiritual realm where God and a chosen few will live and a restored (not new) earth where others will live.

3. The means to attain heaven - The disagreement here involves what is sometimes referred to as faith versus works. Do humans attain heaven by faith alone or are good works needed. Some teach a combination of the two. These aren't the only two, but rather just a presentation of two popular teachings. Other approaches would include baptism, good standing in the church, having no unconfessed sins, etc.

The questions for debate are not designed to generate further debate in an attempt to resolve these disagreements, but rather to discuss the nature and persistence of these disagreements.

If the Bible is in some way the result of God's activity, why do these disagreements persist even after perhaps almost two millennia of study and debate?

Some who consider the Bible authoritative, yet not without error or conflict, suggest that no major doctrine is affected by these errors and/or conflicts. Should the doctrines these disagreements involve be considered major?


Tcg

[1213]

...What they see may be quite clear to them but still not the same as what someone else sees in them. They are not necessarily rejecting the truth because they believe that what they understand is the actual truth. ....

Ok, I can believe it is clear to them. However, i have not seen any good reason to reject what Bible directly says and replace it with someones interpretations and own doctrine.

[1213]

...
Did the author of this statement intend for the reader to understand that Harry or the apple was rotting in the basement for a few days?

The direct interpretation is that Harry was rotting in the basement and then subsequently brought up an apple....

If the meaning would be unclear to me, I would ask. If no one would answer, I would leave it unclear and not guess and claim it must mean what I say.

[Eloi]

As long as false religion exists, there will be doctrinal disagreements.

Instead of thinking about the negative of that situation, I think about the advantages.

For example, if a person is really interested in finding biblical truth, that person will have to do his part to distinguish it from false doctrines. He will have to study the Bible more deeply, and accept reality even if he has to shed traditional ideas. That would become proof that he really seeks the truth. On the other hand, he would have to allow himself to be helped by those who know more, and that would show his humility.

Didn't I already say somewhere that it is the attitude that gets to save someone?

[bluegreenearth]

If the meaning would be unclear to me, I would ask. If no one would answer, I would leave it unclear and not guess and claim it must mean what I say.

A statement could have a particular meaning which appears to be clear when it is interpreted in isolation but becomes unclear when the broader context of the paragraph, chapter, book, cannon, and even the prevailing culture is considered. I suspect this may be at the foundation of some doctrinal disputes. For instance, a particular statement in the Bible may be directly interpreted in isolation from the surrounding statements to produce a clear meaning, but this meaning becomes less clear when the broader context of the entire book or cannon is considered. So, another Christian might reasonably ask if the meaning derived from your direct interpretation of a single statement in the Bible makes sense in the broader context of the story or even the entire cannon.

[brunumb]

As long as false religion exists, there will be doctrinal disagreements.

The issue there is that all those doctrinal disagreements are leading to those groups claiming to have the truth while everyone else has the so-called false religion.

For example, if a person is really interested in finding biblical truth, that person will have to do his part to distinguish it from false doctrines.

The assumption there is that the Bible somehow contains the true religion to begin with and that all those others that exist are false. The second point is that there are people who have studied the Bible and done their part but have come to different conclusions about what is the true doctrine. They each then rely on hubris to determine that their conclusion alone is the truth.

He will have to study the Bible more deeply, and accept reality even if he has to shed traditional ideas. That would become proof that he really seeks the truth. On the other hand, he would have to allow himself to be helped by those who know more, and that would show his humility.

Are you suggesting that those who have developed different doctrinal views have not studied the Bible deeply? No doubt the help you suggest would necessarily come from the source that you hold as having the truth rather than from anyone else.

Didn't I already say somewhere that it is the attitude that gets to save someone?

The attitude that goes along with "I have the truth so believe what I am telling you and don't listen to anyone else"?

[brunumb]

“He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all.”

― Samuel Taylor Coleridge

[brunumb]

It seems that doctrinal disagreements are no longer the most divisive element in Christianity. Politics has reared its ugly head.

The Evangelical Church Is Breaking Apart

The way our sensibilities are shaped determines who we are, including the order of our loves. For many Christians, their politics has become more of an identity marker than their faith. They might insist that they are interpreting their politics through the prism of scripture, with the former subordinate to the latter, but in fact scripture and biblical ethics are often distorted to fit their politics.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... cs/620469/

[nobspeople]

It seems that doctrinal disagreements are no longer the most divisive element in Christianity. Politics has reared its ugly head.

The Evangelical Church Is Breaking Apart

The way our sensibilities are shaped determines who we are, including the order of our loves. For many Christians, their politics has become more of an identity marker than their faith. They might insist that they are interpreting their politics through the prism of scripture, with the former subordinate to the latter, but in fact scripture and biblical ethics are often distorted to fit their politics.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... cs/620469/

As 'Martha Stewart' said on South Park: "It's a good thing."

[Tcg]

It seems that doctrinal disagreements are no longer the most divisive element in Christianity. Politics has reared its ugly head.

The Evangelical Church Is Breaking Apart

The way our sensibilities are shaped determines who we are, including the order of our loves. For many Christians, their politics has become more of an identity marker than their faith. They might insist that they are interpreting their politics through the prism of scripture, with the former subordinate to the latter, but in fact scripture and biblical ethics are often distorted to fit their politics.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... cs/620469/

I deconverted from Christianity some twenty years ago and have grown out of touch with the church and it's emphasis on politics. Given how important politics has become to some Christians I can see why doctrinal disagreements would be placed on the back burner or perhaps ignored completely. In some sense then they may persist, but few if any will care. It would be interesting to view a hundred years down the road to see what the church will develop into.


Tcg

[William]

[Replying to Tcg in post #1]

Given the nature of life as we know it, differences are the result of multiple personality types who cannot see past those differences, and in that, religion is not the only culture which does this. It appears to be a standard human trait.

Sometimes the argument is that a perfect creator should have been able to have sorted that out. A set of documents attributed to being inspired by him, there appears to be ample evidence in the collective writings which shows us that there were more than one or two differences in the personalities which wrote those, and thus beliefs vary and contribute to the disagreements which ensure., through apparent contradictions.

Biblical Jesus can be shown to have understood this human dynamic re what we are told of his interactions.

One might wonder [as I do], why there were 12 apostles but maybe only half as many have something they wrote published in the bible. While the others are strangely absent.

Could it be then, that the different personalities who did get published were still under the bondage of their more competitive natures, while those who missed out took it all in stride, and being less competitive, were easily elbowed out of the spotlight?

And what about the absence of writing from Jesus himself? Are we to assume that he wrote nothing and left everything up to the followers to sort?

If so, then we have some indication as to why differing doctrine and disagreements happened. Not because Jesus didn't give his followers something to write about. But because Jesus never gave us anything he wrote about. Or he did, but these writing were left out of the bible...we do not know.

Sometimes we see the argument that "God protects his word" [meaning the bible] from any human tampering, but given this is not really always the case, as more often than not, the biblical God lets his words be added to, subtracted from and misused in other ways, seemingly preferring to let humans suffer the results of doing so, rather than interfere with that process. Given that this is evident throughout the biblical stories told, it is highly unlikely "God protected the bible from human tampering" as is the common Christian argument.