As we know, one fault we see in the doctrine of others (but never in our own) is expansionist interpretation.
If scripture says we do not understand "the things of the Spirit" why that means "all the things of the Spirit" rather than the least the verse could be saying, "some of the things of the Spirit."
By asking ourselves "what is the least this is saying" we drill down to sound understanding. Now a more expansionist message might be intended, but that would need to be corroborated with another passage interpreted as what is the least it is saying.
When Romans 9:16 says [salvation] "does not depend on the man who wills" we can take away two truths, one some people some of the time will to be saved, and two, our efforts to save ourselves will not result in salvation. To add to it that it does not depend on the man who wills (even if he could, but he cannot)... is to engage in nullification. Doctrines based on nullification and expansion are man-made doctrines.
Speculation is the mother of false doctrine. Consider those who say "it does not mean what it seems to say, it means the opposite of what it says. Take the JW effort that starts out "the Word was God, and transitions to "the Word was a god" (but since there is only one God) the meaning becomes "the Word was not God. Man-made doctrines rely on various methods of nullification to deal with the verses that teach the doctrine is bogus.
