Determining Doctrine

Where to begin?  I've written a number of blogs where I argue the trustworthiness of the Bible.  I am a Christian.  I am mostly speaking to Christians.  So I start with the assumption that you and I both want to be truly Christian.  But if someone is not convinced about Christianity, there's plenty to read which would convince him.  This note will deal with the question of determining doctrine as a Christian, not the fundamental question of Christianity as the one true religion.  That question I have answered elsewhere, and will continue to answer elsewhere, the Lord willing.

There has to be something which determines our beliefs.  We don't just make up our doctrines as we go.  If we believe that God is real in the first place, and that Christ is the incarnation of God, then we must believe that God has revealed the truth to us.  He has not ignored us and left us on our own, to figure out what is true and what is not.  But rather God has shown us what is true.  The problem is in the reality of Satan, and the fact that Satan is always introducing lies into the world (a fact that is plainly stated in the Bible).  It is because of Satan and his lies that determining doctrine can be such a task.  We must separate fact from fiction, and that's not always easy.  Let us start with the Bible, and the claims surrounding the Bible.

Not every Christian believes that the Bible is the sole rule of Christian doctrine.  Catholics say that the church (RCC) itself determines doctrine.  That it is improper for anyone to interpret the Bible for him or herself.  That the church leadership must interpret the Bible.  This brings me to a fundamental question: What should the rule or standard of Christian doctrine be?  What, or who, should we refer to to know what is true and what is false.  Whatever or whoever that is, it must be from God Himself.  We will have to use our reasoning - that is, God's gift of wisdom - to answer this question.

Catholics today are not the only Catholics that have thought that only the church itself can properly interpret Scripture.  The early Catholics, many of them, thought the same way.  Unity in the church was crucial to them.  There were many heretical sects at that time.  Gnostics, Montanists, Docetists, Ebionites, Arians, etc.  There were many false doctrines trying to get into the church, cause confusion and division.  And this should not surprise us; as I already mentioned, Satan is always spreading his lies.  To protect against these lies, early Christian leaders made sure there was a very clear boundary between the Catholic (universal) Church and all the heretical sects.  The way they thought, if you were not following the teaching of the Catholic bishop, you were not Christian.  And if it was not the Catholic Church, it was not Christianity.  There were strict lines in place.  There was a strict rule of faith.  All of this was founded upon the church leadership.  The glue that held the church together, and the strict boundaries that separated it from the heretics, was because of the church leadership.  That church leadership, in many cases, was taught by the apostles themselves.  Or leaders in the church were taught by men who were taught by the apostles.  Regardless, point is, there was little space between the leadership of the early Catholic Church and the apostles themselves.  Who can blame them for thinking the church leadership had such authority?  If Polycarp was the bishop of your local church, and Polycarp was taught by John the apostle, would you question the teaching of Polycarp?  Of course not.  Whatever Polycarp taught, you would take it to be true Christian doctrine.  So its no wonder that early Christians had such a method of determining doctrine.  The leaders of the church determined the doctrine; and those leaders were not too far removed from the apostles themselves.

The other reasons early Catholics looked to their bishops and elders for guidance is the fact that a canon of the New Testament did not exist at that point.  The books of the New Testament surely did.  And these books played a major role in church life and belief.  There are some early canons that go back to the third century.  But it was not until the end of the fourth century that an official canon was decided on.  And that canon - the 27 books of the New Testament - has since been agreed on by all professing Christians.  There is no debate amongst Christians (except maybe some of the most liberal scholars) what books make up the New Testament.  But for the early Christians this was not the case.  The only thing, to them, that was surely Christian was the church itself, started by the apostles, and the leaders of the church, taught by the apostles.

However, the Catholic Church has changed.  It was a gradual change.  At first it was the apostles and the churches started by apostles.  There was little structure to it.  The apostles themselves were sent by Christ Himself, so there's no question that they had authority to teach and determine Christian doctrine.  The first churches were founded by the apostles.  They met in each others' homes.  There were no designated meeting places, other than the temple for those in Jerusalem.  They observed Communion.  They sang some songs, prayed.  We don't know if there were any sort of sermons at that point.  We do know that they read letters from the apostles, like Paul's letters, if they had them.  I'm sure they kept these letters, and may have reread them from time to time.  They probably also read from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament.  In short, there was little order or conformity in the first Christian churches.  The meetings were very simple.  The practices simple.  The baptisms simple.  Everything was pretty much simple, down to earth and practical.  But as time went on, the structure of the church became more of a hierarchy.  The practices of the church became more ornate and complicated.  Things were added, like sermons (homilies).  Practices were made into more of an ordeal, like Baptism and Communion (the Eucharist).  The church gradually moved away from the style of the apostles.  And as time went on, especially after Christianity was legalized and made the official religion in the Roman Empire, the doctrines of the Catholic Church became subtly different than what the apostles taught.  Today the Roman Catholic Church is something that would be unrecognizable to Peter or Paul.  Certainly, neither Peter or Paul had a throne.  None of the apostles did, and none of them would approve of it, since it goes against the teaching of Christ that "all of you are brothers".  Yet the pope has a throne.  The more you study the issue, and the more you question it, you will see that the Roman Catholic Church is not anything like the early Catholic Church, nor was it handed down from the apostles.

So should we determine our doctrine the same way the early Catholics did?  My last paragraph may have already answered that.  But I'll extend the argument.  If the Roman Catholic Church truly were the church that Christ meant when He said, "upon this rock I will build my church", then why are there other Christian churches?  Anything outside of the Catholic Church was called heresy by the early Catholics.  Today there are many churches professing Christianity, and the Roman Catholics will not go so far as to call them heresy.  There are Eastern Orthodox Christians.  There are Protestant Christians.  There are Messianic Jewish Christians.  There are non-denom Christians.  And none of them belong to the Roman Catholic Church, nor do they look to Catholic leadership to determine doctrine.  Yet the Catholic leadership is wishy washy in calling them heretical, especially Eastern Orthodox.  Can we say that all of these other Christian churches are heretical sects?  I do not see any evidence of it.  Sure, there are false doctrines in every one of these groups; none are perfect in everything they believe and practice.  But there is not enough falsehood to call any of them heretical.  If the Roman Catholic Church were truly the church Christ founded, why the split?  If the Roman Catholic Church is God's church, why are there other churches that seem legitimately Christian?  Shouldn't there only be one?  Christ never said anything about founding two or three or three dozen different churches.  Paul spoke specifically of one body of Christ (one church).  This should lead us to question the Catholic claim that they are the church Christ founded.  Furthermore, Christ taught that we would know the false prophets by their fruit.  What is the fruit of the Catholic leadership and doctrine?  Idolatry.  I do not have the space to go into detail here.  But if you look into it, you won't have to go far to find examples of Catholic idolatry.  Its all over the place.  That fact too should force us to question the claim that they are the church Christ founded.

What church did Christ found?  I'll answer this question briefly, since it relates, then move on with the central question of this note.  The church Christ founded was a spiritual church.  There is no official organization on earth that is the Church of Christ.  Rather, the Church of Christ is invisible (its boundaries are not seen), it is in every regenerated believer on earth; it is a spiritual thing, not a physical thing.  That is what Christ meant when He said "I will build my church".

My rule and standard for determining doctrine is the Bible.  Now the Catholics will say that I don't have any right to read or interpret "their" book.  How can I put faith in a collection of books that the Catholic Church canonized, and not put faith in the Catholic Church itself?  As I already said, the Catholic Church today is something different than the Catholic Church of the Council of Carthage (where the NT canon was made official).  But the real basis of my faith in the Bible is Providence.  I do not have to think that those at the Council of Carthage had any special authority to decide the books of the New Testament.  I do not have to accept any concept of Catholic authority to have confidence in the 27 books of the New Testament.  The Bible was given to us by God.  God acted through the members of that council.  The establishment of the New Testament, along with the establishment of the Old Testament, happened by divine Providence.  God is in control of everything.  And did two different Bibles result?  Certainly not.  Even if you want to get into a debate about the Apocrypha, that doesn't even affect the New Testament.  The Apocrypha was not even canonized until much later.  If it deserved to be in the canon, and it were God's will that would be, you would think it would have been canonized with the rest of Scripture.  The early Catholics themselves, including Augustine, Origen and Jerome, did not consider the Apocrypha to be scriptural.  They only considered it to be helpful literature; not divinely inspired Scripture.  All of that aside, there was only one Bible given to us.  Could it have been given to us by anyone other than God?  Do you think God would allow Satan to deceitfully include books that shouldn't be there, or exclude books that should be there?  Do you think God would allow the Bible to be so inadequate for revealing Himself, though His own words are recorded in it, that we must refer to the Roman Catholic Church?  I take it that God gave us the Bible.  The authority of the Bible comes by Providence; the fact that it came to us by God's working throughout history.  There is no need whatsoever to acknowledge any kind of Catholic authority to believe the Bible as the inspired and authoritative word of God.

Through what are we the closest to the apostles?  Through the Roman Catholic Church, or through the Bible?  The Roman Catholic Church may be the product, after many many years, of the early Catholic Church.  But the early Catholic Church became the Catholic Church of the dark ages, then the Catholic Church of the middle ages, and now the Catholic Church of today.  It was passed down, and passed down, and passed down.  What may have started with the apostles, certainly has little to do with the apostles now.  What is closer to the apostles?  A collection of books that were written by them, or a church that was handed down from a church handed down from a church handed down from a church handed down, eventually and so on, a church started by the apostles?  Succession of apostleship, by the way, is found no where in the Bible.  If the apostles believed that their authority as apostles would be handed down through centuries of bishops, they certainly forgot to mention it in all their writings.  Whereas the early Christians were sufficiently close to the apostles by their own Catholic Church leadership, we today are only close to the apostles by the books of the New Testament.  That is the trade-off.  We have something they didn't (a finished Bible).  They had something we don't (church leadership closely associated with the apostles themselves).

So the Bible is the best way of determining doctrine, but how should we interpret the Bible?  By wisdom and understanding.  We must ask God to give us the insight - the Holy Spirit - to know what is meant in Scripture.  As a practical matter, I suggest going to the gospels and reading Christ's words.  You may start in the Old Testament to get the background.  Yet the Old Testament is not so much concerned with Christian doctrine.  To be sure, Christian doctrine does not contradict the teaching of the Old Testament.  Yet the Old Testament can only teach you a few fundamental themes; the rest will have to come from the New Testament.  It is unavoidable, as you try to understand the Bible, that voices are going to be in your ear.  There are many competing doctrines, whose adherents claim to be biblical.  Most are not biblical.  And so, when you read the Bible, you may want to jump right to the heart of the matter.  Paul wrote that the church - that is, the true Christian Church of all ages, founded by Christ Himself, which is spiritual and doesn't consist in any official organization - is built upon the prophets and the apostles, with Christ Jesus as the chief cornerstone.  The prophets wrote the Old Testament; the apostles wrote the New Testament.  But if you're going to understand either the Old Testament or the New Testament, you better understand the teaching of Christ.  Jesus brings it all together.  Read the Bible through the lens of Jesus' teaching, it makes perfect sense.  But if you read the Bible with all those other voices constantly in your ear, you are almost guaranteed to be confused.  The teaching of Jesus will set many fundamental truths in place.  And these fundamental truths will prevent you from believing at least 90% of the false doctrines out there.  That, right there, is most of the battle already won.

But how do you understand the teaching of Jesus?  As I have already said, you must first ask God for understanding.  As a practical matter, I'll again give a suggestion.  Everything Jesus said has some kind of meaning.  Of course some things, like "show me a denarius", have nothing to do with doctrine, but was just Jesus' interaction with people.  It should not be hard to tell the difference between Jesus teaching and Jesus giving a simple command - "show me a denarius".  Its common sense, really.  As for everything that Jesus taught, every parable he told, there is a meaning to it.  If you do not know the meaning of something Jesus taught, you better not give up until you have discovered its meaning.  You cannot simply pass it by.  Do not ignore it.  Everything Jesus said means something, and it means something important.  So take the time, meditate upon it, read more of Scripture, read some commentary.  Carefully consider what Jesus is saying.  And when you understand what Jesus means, accept it and let it determine your foundational doctrine.  If it contradicts something you already believe, you better throw that old belief away.  So much of what Jesus taught really is fundamental doctrine.  It is essential universal truths.  It lays the foundation for all other beliefs; anything that does not fit on it doesn't belong.  It is the lens through which to read all the rest of Scripture.  By understanding Jesus, you will understand the whole of the Bible.

I think that last statement (I'll proudly stand by it) is a good place to leave you.