Is it OK to question church doctrine?

The gospel is not a law to keep.
The gospel is the grace of God.
The law is God's ordinances to be kept.

you were forgiven anyway.

JOB 1:21 And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.
1:22 In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.

Please read about what the Nicene Council accomplished.
The Council of Nicaea was the first council in the history of the Christian church that was intended to address the entire body of believers. It was convened by the emperor Constantine to resolve the controversy of Arianism, a doctrine that held that Christ was not divine but was a created being. The council deemed Arianism a heresy and enshrined the divinity of Christ by invoking the term homoousios (Greek: “of one substance”) in a statement of faith known as the Creed of Nicaea.

Let's not make more of it than what it was, or give too much credit to Constantine for many changes that were implemented by his sons or others later on.

As to the Dead Sea scrolls they did nothing more than give additional insight into the daily lives of the Essenes or those eccentric Jewish religious sects like them that rejected the Pharisees and lived on the edge of the city in commune like establishments and who collected libraries. The scrolls that dealt with their communal rules shed light only on them. Light is shed on their theology but nothing in the Dead Sea Scrolls changed our understanding of the times before Christ.

A good New Testament Survey book would be the best way to learn about the times from the Babylonian Captivity up to the appearance of Christ and what the culture, politicly, religiously, etc was like. There is a huge amount of documented information to give us this understanding and all of the New Testament Survey books are similar in the way they present it. The Dead Sea Scrolls did not add much if anything to that.

We don't even know for sure how many of the pseudonymous works (writings under a false name) they took serious or just collected as literature to refute. They did not add anything to our knowledge of the times before Christ. Writings such as the Maccabees, and the historians Tacitus, Heroditus, Thicydides and many others had already provided much information about times between the Testaments and the Dead Sea Scrolls added nothing to this.

I think it would help to read a Wikipedia article on the Dead Sea Scroll for starters and this will help you discern fact from fiction when people claim too much about the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The most significant contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls was that of providing a copy of Isaiah that was 900 years older than any copy we had in extant before this discovery. By comparing it to existing manuscripts there were not significant differences and this disproved the argument often suggested by secular college professors that we cannot know if our current copy of scriptures is what the original authors wrote because they have been copied so many times they are probably full of mistakes. The copy of Isaiah nearly 1000 years older having do difference put that argument to rest.
The unbelievers still say it but they just make themselves out to be uneducated when they say it now.

Oh. To answer your question;

If we do not do our own bible study to determine whether our church doctrine is the best interpretation of scriptures on those doctrines and blindly follow them we could be guilty of idolatry, placing that denomination higher in our hearts that the Lord Jesus Christ.

If in our study we discover that our church doctrine is making a mistake in interpreting scripture, for example making statements that the gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased when the book of Revelation was completed, but we do not find this in the scripture and we do not feel comfortable accepting this interpretation, (i.e. we feel the check of the Spirit) but we then choose to accept it anyway because "they know more than me" or "I don't want to rock the boat" then we are committing idolatry and placing the denomination or church teaching higher than our love for truth.

We are responsible to walk in the Light that God has given us. Even if it means withdrawing from that fellowship and finding one who's doctrines are more in line with the interpretation of scriptures as you have discovered for yourself.

Sometimes it does not really matter that much. You might not agree with an interpretation of something that your church is teaching but it is not a deal breaker. For example the timing of the rapture.

John 3:16

1 John 1:8 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

And? Is that meant to dispute what I said?

Who is being addressed there? I say believers. What say you?

I was not a believer when forgiveness was gifted to me.

Your post is about making judgments of the good or bad of the council, but with that goal in mind it would be impossible to see the actual changes, it would just be judging.. I am urging people to look at those changes and check them with scripture.

Amen! The gospel is a message of grace that is to be received through faith. The gospel is not a set of rituals to perform, a code of laws to be obeyed or a check list of good works to accomplish as a prerequisite for salvation. The gospel is certainly not salvation by grace plus law, faith plus works. The gospel is the "good news" of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that BELIEVES.. (Romans 1:16) To “believe” the gospel is to trust in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation.

It's called Grace! He gifted us with grace, long before we came to accept or love him.

Romans 5:20 The law came in so that the trespass would increase; but where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.…

2 Corinthians 12:9 “My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is perfected in weakness. Therefore I will boast all the more gladly in my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest on me. 10That is why, for the sake of Christ, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.…

Faith and Assurance
Hebrews 11:1Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see. 2This is why the ancients were commended. 3By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. Berean Study Bible

In direct response to your title:

Yes. Most definitely.

Don't get me wrong, I would never intentionally question our Lord and Savior when it comes to His church. I believe in THAT church with all my heart, even though my faith may be weak.

However, I will question the crazy doctrines of man-made churches. For example:

I will question the Southern Baptist Church for requiring a letter of recommendation to become a member.

I will question the Lutheran church for their religiosity.

I will question Pentecostal and Charismatic denominations for requiring people to speak in tongues.

I will question the Church of Christ denomination abut being so rigid.

I will question the Catholic church about praying to Mary and the ostensible hubris of power.

Man-made "churches" are not sanctified by God in any way, shape, or form. God lives inside each believer. We don't need ornate buildings with stained glass, pretty flower gardens, or huge concert stages with massive sound systems and theater lighting to house the Almighty!

If you think you can't live without your church, ask yourself this question: "Why do I keep coming back to this Christian forum so often?"

Is it because we cannot get the fellowship we get here in our own "churches?' Something to think about...

As long as you keep in mind that ALL CULTS AND CULTISTS also make this claim about going back to Scripture. And as we see on these forums, those claiming to go back to Scripture also misinterpret, misapply, and misunderstand what is stated in the Bible. Hence the number of flaky and quirky threads. Take your pick.

Let's focus on your quirkiness for starters. Even though the Bible says that the Old Covenant is null and void, you simply refuse to believe God and Christ, and wish to make up your own theology with a mishmash of the Old And New Covenants.

According to you the OT feasts are still valid, even though there is no temple and no Levitical priesthood. Which means a sham observance of the feasts. Christ already fulfilled the Passover, but you wish to keep on celebrating Passover with unbelieving Jews. You supposedly went back to the Bible, but ignored what did not suit you.

So then we would read what decisions were made at the first Nicean council and we learn that they argued about whether Jesus was divine. The decisions they made were a proper interpretation of scripture concerning the divinity of Jesus Christ.

When it comes to philosophically explaining these things, like the humanity of Jesus and the divinity of Jesus these explanations when using philosophical rhetoric always seem wanting but they were trying to refute a heresy that was gaining ground in the church from Alexandria by Arius that Jesus was created and this heresy needed to be refuted. The Roman Catholic system was not yet born at this time though the ecclesiastical bishops had gained secular influence and were beginning to enjoy politcal power because of the favor of the Emperor and the financial support of the state. This was a corrupting influence for sure.

There were already many "corruptions" and changes that had infiltrated the church long before this council. These corruptions had been seeping in since the time of Paul when he warned that they would come after his departure. There is no ONE man to blame or a particular council to trace it all too.

Church history is complex. I suggest Kenneth Scott Latourette's 2 volumes on "A History of Christianity"

There never was a Golden Age of doctrinal purity in the church. She started wrestling with doctrines of demons immediately, going astray as soon as each church was planted. This is always going to be the case. We are in a war, and satan is always trying to bring in damnable heresies and false teachers and false apostles have been attacking her since day one.

Reading the "church fathers" which are more like "early church writers" you will see that they were already as confused and arguing about interpretation of scriptures as the modern church is today. It is doubtful that some of those writers were even born again, they are often given more authority than they deserve simply because their writings survived when others that would have been much more useful did not.

Sounds like someone was deep-sixing the Dead Sea Scrolls.

deep-six
verb
deep-sixed; deep-sixing; deep-sixes
Definition of deep-six
1: to get rid of : DISCARD, ELIMINATE


In any event, the Dead Sea Scrolls have LITTLE OR NOTHING to add to Bible Christianity. The Jewish Qumran sect had their own quirky beliefs, and also had a lot of non-scriptural and apocryphal writings.

What the Dead Sea Scrolls accomplished was to confirm the doctrine of the divine preservation of Scripture. The Isaiah scroll from about 200 BC was an almost exact replica of Isaiah in the Masoretic Text (c. 900 AD).

Also Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church which is a classic.

The church should only practice in the worship service what is documented in the scriptures, and that consists of only four things; acapella singing (making melody in your heart), praying, preaching, and the contribution collection.

John 12:47, If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not, for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
2 Tim 2:13, If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful, he cannot deny himself.

Could you show me what the christ changed? For better understanding please.😉

Hello @Blik, I hadn't heard of the "Roots Movement" until you brought it up in this thread, but (at least at first blush) I agree with the article below, that it is nothing new (as the preacher said, "there is nothing new under the sun"). I'm going to continue to look into this, but for now, here's the short article that I was referring to for you and others to consider if you'd like to. (as you will quickly see, the folks at GotQuestions.org do not think this new movement is either a new or a good thing)


~Deut

Depends on the type of change. The Church has had to adjust to a changing world. The question is; has it developed understanding of what has always been believed or has it morphed into an errant faith. If it morphed can it be said it was ever promised the Holy Spirit to be guided to all Truth.