Featured Man-made Doctrines of faith/worship 2

That sounds good. But what does it mean?
1) There are no inerrant readers of Holy Scripture.
So what are the rules of hermeneutic as you understand it that should be used? Understand what ever it is it is man made.
2) There are no inerrant translations.
3) There are no known inerrant copies.

 

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.

 

AS has been said there is no inerrant readers of scripture. That is why we need to have some grace with others who differ from us with the exception of primary doctrines. Admittedly I have little patience for some doctrines such as preterism, and the gap theory. Some things are just too stupid to put up with.

 

These and others are man's attempts to explain scripture to man's understanding. We do not have to understand everything but should accept things we do not understand. The questions we have are not from God but man.

 

Trinitarianism.....

 

The problem with rejecting "isms" is the risk of painting oneself into a corner. About ism: "used as a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence, etc." [Dictionary.com]. So, if someone says they do not believe in isms, they are forced to back peddle when faced with obvious orthodox doctrines such as Trinitarianism or Baptism. The other thing they often try to do is affirm a theological truth without naming it. For instance, "I do not believe in Trinitarianism but I believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equally God." I actually had someone tell me this once because they reject all labels. It was not worth arguing the point because at least they were confessing the truth of the Trinity, even if they refused to call it that. The point? As long as they are embracing cardinal truths of the faith, let them win by just nodding your head when they reject labels, isms, or any other definition.

 

I want to add a P.S. to my last post. I do not impugn the motives of anyone who rejects isms or labels. I believe most of them are motivated by a desire to be biblical and not believe something that may not be true to their biblical convictions. However, sometimes the pendulum swings too far the other way and truth or perspective is either lost or obscured. Five years ago, my dear bride had a large cyst that required surgery. After the procedure, the surgeon explained how he had to be extremely careful because the cyst was attached to her liver. He did not want to excise viable tissue along with the cyst. Sometimes theology is just like that. In our zeal to keep human wisdom out of our theological understanding, we may lose valuable insight. Things are not always as easy as they seem.

 

I think the above presents us with a working definition of Biblical and man-made doctrines.
Biblical doctrines are the ones I believe in and follow; man-made doctrines are what other people believe in and follow.

 

I know, just wanted to point out the absurdity of the argument.

 

My point was many isms are plainly in Scripture so to immediately dismiss all isms is nonsense.

 

Even then you get disagreements.

 

Who was sent? ". . .The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. . . ." -- John 13:16. Who was sent to create all things from the begining? John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17; Ephesians 3:9, ". . . from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: . . ." Again, everything created, John 1:3.

 

It's not that simple.

 

The gap theory is not in the least bit stupid. Some of the wild offshoot theories of it are, but the basic theory of a gap is not.

 

Maybe not stupid, but no evidence for it either.

 

There is some (not a lot of) scriptural support for it. There is some questions it seems to answer. I am by no means convinced it is true, but keep it open as a possibility.

I don't care what science says. There are some scientific facts that are irrefutable. The distance of the stars from which Earth receives light is the main evidence for an old universe. So, God either created an aged universe, or the universe is indeed old. God being all knowing, I don't think He decided one day "I want a universe and I need to play 1 billion years catch up." Maybe, but I doubt it.

 

I heard a Christian astrophysicist give a talk on creation. I cannot quote him verbatim, but essentially he said that God may have created similar to a rock being thrown into the water. If God spoke all there is into existence, could not the created universe have started upon his every word and then proceed outward much like ripples in the water? His theory explains stars being billions of light years away but our being able to see their light today. Like the Big Bang, everything started from one point and then accelerated outwards at tremendous speed. Unlike the Big Bang, God created life in literal 24-hour days as stated in the Genesis creation narrative. I think his theory is as good as anyone.