Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Regarding the establishment of "hard" church doctrine: how many times must a thing, a concept, or a practice be mentioned in the Bible, in order for it to become established, irrefutable, doctrine? (Assuming it is something that the Lord Himself has not already commented on). And....what if the SAME individual mentioned something three times, but nobody else did? Does that carry the same "weight" of evidence as three seperate individuals mentioning it one time? Do you regard their position, or stature, in the early church when making this determination? Since every church has doctrine, how do you determine the Lord's will regarding doctrine, and whether that particular church's view is correct (or not) ?
Mentioned once....maybe "good enough" for some, but not all... ?
Mentioned twice....looking kinda solid...
Mentioned three times....getting hard to deny...
Mentioned a bunch....but it was only for the "early church", and not for us. (how do you know that view is correct?)
Mentioned a bunch....but it was only for those under the "Old Covenant"...doesn't apply to us modern Christians, under the Law of Grace. (are you sure?)
Mentioned a bunch, but I personally don't like it, it's "stupid, silly, and makes no sense", so I'm gonna reject it. Besides, I am a refined and respected person in the community...I have friends in high places...what would they think of me? I'll just find a modern church that believes the way I do...
Yeah...sure it's "in there", but my pastor says some unauthorized person added that in at a later date, so it's not by the original author....you can totally disregard it. (God wasn't able to preserve His Word...) (and...the pastor is NEVER wrong!)
It's mentioned LOTS of times, but in another part of the Bible a contrary practice, or opinion, is also mentioned LOTS of times. What to do?
Hard to say, Bud, without getting into specifics. I think for those of us who take the Word of God seriously, as being divinely inspired I mean, you kinda have to look at "the whole counsel of the Word of God" and what does it seem to say "in context" of where it is in the Bible and relationship to the whole Bible. Again, without specifics, that's all I would know to say. I think doctrine has to be established by "rightly dividing the entire Word of God" if that makes any sense. Doctrine should not be established by "proof texting."
Obviously, different people and groups will not necessarily see "eye to eye" on everything. But I think we need to be led by the Holy Spirit into divine revelation of the Bible as much as possible.
Regarding the establishment of "hard" church doctrine: how many times must a thing, a concept, or a practice be mentioned in the Bible, in order for it to become established, irrefutable, doctrine? (Assuming it is something that the Lord Himself has not already commented on). And....what if the SAME individual mentioned something three times, but nobody else did? Does that carry the same "weight" of evidence as three seperate individuals mentioning it one time? Do you regard their position, or stature, in the early church when making this determination? Since every church has doctrine, how do you determine the Lord's will regarding doctrine, and whether that particular church's view is correct (or not) ?
Mentioned once....maybe "good enough" for some, but not all... ?
Mentioned twice....looking kinda solid...
Mentioned three times....getting hard to deny...
Mentioned a bunch....but it was only for the "early church", and not for us. (how do you know that view is correct?)
Mentioned a bunch....but it was only for those under the "Old Covenant"...doesn't apply to us modern Christians, under the Law of Grace. (are you sure?)
Mentioned a bunch, but I personally don't like it, it's "stupid, silly, and makes no sense", so I'm gonna reject it. Besides, I am a refined and respected person in the community...I have friends in high places...what would they think of me? I'll just find a modern church that believes the way I do...
Yeah...sure it's "in there", but my pastor says some unauthorized person added that in at a later date, so it's not by the original author....you can totally disregard it. (God wasn't able to preserve His Word...) (and...the pastor is NEVER wrong!)
It's mentioned LOTS of times, but in another part of the Bible a contrary practice, or opinion, is also mentioned LOTS of times. What to do?
Just curious what ya'll think....
Bud
As a Roman Catholic, I can tell you that my Church has been restling with that question for over 2,000 years.
Summary - once is plenty but make sure you understand it.
I believe in the infallibility of scripture. That is different from inerrancy which is hard to maintian. To explain, inerrancy (without error) would suggest that nowhere in the bible will you find two statements that disagree. By infallibility (cannot fail) I mean it will always tell you the right thing to do - it will not fail to guide you correctly.
That means once is enough if it is about what we should do/believe.
However I must encapsulate this with a few requirements. Some people will try to read a one liner in scripture without looking at the context in which it was said - one needs to read entire passages to understand what it is saying. It is also a question of your frame of mind - if you come to the word wanting it to agree with your feelings on hte matter - guess what, it probably will! But if you come to the word prayerfully, openly seeking God's answers the I beleive you can rely on what you find. Of course there will always be times when people misunderstand or misinterpret and if it is a big deal or seems different from what you have heard or baeen taught I suggest checking the translation - go back to the original language to check improtant words, discuss it with others - but ask them to show you from the scripture not just what they think.
In my opinion, if you follow this approach, you will not find any dissagreements in the scripture - if someone thinks they have one, I would like to hear it.
The reason I threw the OP questions out there is that some people say you can't build a doctrine on just ONE statement in the scripture, because somewhere in there it also says something about having TWO, or THREE, witnesses. A witness can be people, pieces of evidence, or more than one statement...
Some churches are just completely full, completely cram-packed, with hard-to-keep ridiculous rules, regulations, and practices that I don't see the early Christians in the Bible doing. One that comes to mind is the handling of (venomous) snakes. Is it mentioned in the Word? Yes...at the end of the book of Mark. Can we build a doctrine on it, since it is mentioned at least once? IMO: NO!!! (a VERY dangerous doctrine, IMO...that should be STOPPED!) I believe it's in there to say you will not die if you handle a snake ACCIDENTLY. Problem is, some people think it means "no, do it to prove you have faith...show us...here, take this rattlesnake...". I say BALONEY! That's NOT what the original writer in the Bible meant. To back up that line of thought, the Apostle Paul "handled" a poisonous viper in a load of firewood (he didn't know it was there). It bit him, but it had no affect, so he lived. I believe THAT is the true meaning of that particular scripture....the Lord's protection of us, in accidental situations. Hmmm...
Regarding the establishment of "hard" church doctrine: how many times must a thing, a concept, or a practice be mentioned in the Bible, in order for it to become established, irrefutable, doctrine? (Assuming it is something that the Lord Himself has not already commented on). And....what if the SAME individual mentioned something three times, but nobody else did? Does that carry the same "weight" of evidence as three seperate individuals mentioning it one time? Do you regard their position, or stature, in the early church when making this determination? Since every church has doctrine, how do you determine the Lord's will regarding doctrine, and whether that particular church's view is correct (or not) ?
Mentioned once....maybe "good enough" for some, but not all... ?
Mentioned twice....looking kinda solid...
Mentioned three times....getting hard to deny...
Mentioned a bunch....but it was only for the "early church", and not for us. (how do you know that view is correct?)
Mentioned a bunch....but it was only for those under the "Old Covenant"...doesn't apply to us modern Christians, under the Law of Grace. (are you sure?)
Mentioned a bunch, but I personally don't like it, it's "stupid, silly, and makes no sense", so I'm gonna reject it. Besides, I am a refined and respected person in the community...I have friends in high places...what would they think of me? I'll just find a modern church that believes the way I do...
Yeah...sure it's "in there", but my pastor says some unauthorized person added that in at a later date, so it's not by the original author....you can totally disregard it. (God wasn't able to preserve His Word...) (and...the pastor is NEVER wrong!)
It's mentioned LOTS of times, but in another part of the Bible a contrary practice, or opinion, is also mentioned LOTS of times. What to do?
Just curious what ya'll think....
Bud
During the turn of the 20th century fundamentalist-modernist controversy of doctrine became a larger issue. Not since the reformation period had there been a theological/doctrinal challenge that continues today. From that period some doctrinal tenets were set forth, as necessary, to "defend the faith". I do not see this list as all incompassing, but it represents a modern doctrine "defend" list.
The inerrancy of scripture
The deity of Jesus Christ
The virgin birth
Bodily resurrection of Christ
The personal return of Christ
Doctine often doesn't change in response, but rather is elevated or demoted depending on the threat. Historically speaking the reformation was the biggie for Christians... internally. Now the threat is more of an external threat from non Christians... or extreme liberialism/realativism.
Doctrine is more about commitment to truth rather than actual truth. Truth and doctine are closely related but only "pure unadulterated truth" can be found in God. Doctine is more about a finite mind/language explaining the infinite understanding that only God is capable of. For example... money... and the stewardship of money, mentioned over 300 times in the Bible. Important? absolutely! Doctrine? there are lots of truths, mostly truths, nearly truths, and partial truths. All true, but incomplete because of our finite nature. Sometimes theologians can make simple text into complex
ascertations. But that's OK. We as human... and through our imperfection God perfection is revealed.
What troubles me is the ''personal doictrine" that develops when we are apart from the body. Sciencetology (sp?) is an example.
For me my default will always be, Gal 5:6b the only thing that matters is faith working through love.
The reason I threw the OP questions out there is that some people say you can't build a doctrine on just ONE statement in the scripture, because somewhere in there it also says something about having TWO, or THREE, witnesses. A witness can be people, pieces of evidence, or more than one statement...
This illustrates my point about context
Dt 19:15 One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.
Mt 18:16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’
2Co 13:1 This will be my third visit to you. "Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses."
1Ti 5:19 Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses.
The second of these verses is not understood (or understood incorrectly) without the previous verse:
Mt 18:15 "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.
Which clearly shows it to be refering to the original Deuteronomy.
They are all talking about two or three witnesses of wrong doing.
If this were to extend to inspired utterance then it would preclude many of th prophets statements - I can illustrate if necessary but I think this is self evident.
Quote:
Some churches are just completely full, completely cram-packed, with hard-to-keep ridiculous rules, regulations, and practices that I don't see the early Christians in the Bible doing. One that comes to mind is the handling of (venomous) snakes. Is it mentioned in the Word? Yes...at the end of the book of Mark.
Two biggies here,
first - read Romans and forget rules.
Ro 8:3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,
it just is not what Christ came to do - bind us with new rules -he came to set us free to love God...
Second, I know this might sound like a cop out BUT there are some scriptures where the translators will say "some manuscripts have..." in these cases we need to be careful to look at both or all possibilities and not place too much importance on either of them if they are differing. In the case of the end of Mark you will find in most translations something like:
The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.
Personally I find these verses out of character with the rest of the gospel and indeed the message of Christ. It appears they have been added at some time by someone else but the translators - being unable to be certain of this simply warn us that they may not be part of the original.
Location: Comunistafornia, and working to get out ASAP!
1,962 posts, read 5,196,033 times
Reputation: 951
Quote:
Originally Posted by BudinAk
The reason I threw the OP questions out there is that some people say you can't build a doctrine on just ONE statement in the scripture, because somewhere in there it also says something about having TWO, or THREE, witnesses. A witness can be people, pieces of evidence, or more than one statement...
Some churches are just completely full, completely cram-packed, with hard-to-keep ridiculous rules, regulations, and practices that I don't see the early Christians in the Bible doing. One that comes to mind is the handling of (venomous) snakes. Is it mentioned in the Word? Yes...at the end of the book of Mark. Can we build a doctrine on it, since it is mentioned at least once? IMO: NO!!! (a VERY dangerous doctrine, IMO...that should be STOPPED!) I believe it's in there to say you will not die if you handle a snake ACCIDENTLY. Problem is, some people think it means "no, do it to prove you have faith...show us...here, take this rattlesnake...". I say BALONEY! That's NOT what the original writer in the Bible meant. To back up that line of thought, the Apostle Paul "handled" a poisonous viper in a load of firewood (he didn't know it was there). It bit him, but it had no affect, so he lived. I believe THAT is the true meaning of that particular scripture....the Lord's protection of us, in accidental situations. Hmmm...
Bud
Bud, this is quite true. In fact footwashing would fit in your scenario as well. Take for example headcovering as found in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 that's the only place in the NT where its found. One mention is it a doctrine or teaching? Yes.
Regarding the establishment of "hard" church doctrine: how many times must a thing, a concept, or a practice be mentioned in the Bible, in order for it to become established, irrefutable, doctrine? (Assuming it is something that the Lord Himself has not already commented on). And....what if the SAME individual mentioned something three times, but nobody else did? Does that carry the same "weight" of evidence as three seperate individuals mentioning it one time? Do you regard their position, or stature, in the early church when making this determination? Since every church has doctrine, how do you determine the Lord's will regarding doctrine, and whether that particular church's view is correct (or not) ?
Mentioned once....maybe "good enough" for some, but not all... ?
Mentioned twice....looking kinda solid...
Mentioned three times....getting hard to deny...
Mentioned a bunch....but it was only for the "early church", and not for us. (how do you know that view is correct?)
Mentioned a bunch....but it was only for those under the "Old Covenant"...doesn't apply to us modern Christians, under the Law of Grace. (are you sure?)
Mentioned a bunch, but I personally don't like it, it's "stupid, silly, and makes no sense", so I'm gonna reject it. Besides, I am a refined and respected person in the community...I have friends in high places...what would they think of me? I'll just find a modern church that believes the way I do...
Yeah...sure it's "in there", but my pastor says some unauthorized person added that in at a later date, so it's not by the original author....you can totally disregard it. (God wasn't able to preserve His Word...) (and...the pastor is NEVER wrong!)
It's mentioned LOTS of times, but in another part of the Bible a contrary practice, or opinion, is also mentioned LOTS of times. What to do?
Just curious what ya'll think....
Bud
Hmmm Bud after giving is some thought, I totally agree...the Bible is always right! We can either receive the word and act accordingly or reject it: try to change it/reject it or ignore it/reject it or take it out of the context or disagree with it and disobey it. Some Bible doctrine is hard...
Bud, this is quite true. In fact footwashing would fit in your scenario as well. Take for example headcovering as found in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 that's the only place in the NT where its found. One mention is it a doctrine or teaching? Yes.
My husband and I were just discussing footwashing last week. It seems so ridiculous to do these in this day and age. In Bible times, they served a purpose. There was a valid reason for the disciples to have their feet washed, they were filthy from walking on dusty roads all day long in sandals. I don't think any of us go to church in this condition, so why do we do the footwashing? I understand the symbolism behind it, but I think there are better, more relevant ways of demonstrating one's willingness to serve.
The other one that seems absurd is Jericho Marches. I mean, do we want the building to fall down? What's the point? These things were for a specific time and place. Just because God told Joshua to do this once, doesn't mean it was ever done again. (We don't have any more examples of the Israelites marching around a city to make the walls fall down.) It would be the same as us spitting into the dirt and putting the mud on people's eyes to make they "see" spiritually. Sounds crazy...but it follows the same mentality that is used in the Jericho marches. It was done once, but it doesn't need to be done again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Infallable v Inerrant
: try to change it/reject
it or ignore it
/reject it or take it out of the context
with it and disobey it. Some Bible doctrine is hard...
I mean, do we want the building to fall down? What's the point? 
These things were for a specific time and place. Just because God told Joshua to do this once, doesn't mean it was ever done again. (We don't have any more examples of the Israelites marching around a city to make the walls fall down.) It would be the same as us spitting into the dirt and putting the mud on people's eyes to make they "see" spiritually. Sounds crazy...but it follows the same mentality that is used in the Jericho marches. It was done once, but it doesn't need to be done again.
