Is it biblical? - What does that even mean?

[David Lamb]

That's all false doctrine that is not biblical at all.... unless one twists scripture and changes definitions like the calvinists do by the leading of demons spirits who taught them the doctrines of demons kn own as calvinism


Calvinism is not biblical... it's authored by the devil and his demon buddies

If you are correct, then (according to you) saying such things as "by nature, we are all dead in trespasses and sins" or "our salvation is entirely by God's grace" is not only unbiblical but is (in your words) "authored by the devil and his demon buddies." Yet we read such things in the bible:

“And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made [us] sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,” (Eph 2:1-6 NKJV)

 

[St. SteVen]

Somehow there are 1,186 more chapters besides those two, which leads me to believe that St SteVen might be on to something with the idea that a lot of doctrine is man-made.

Yes, I would add that from my perspective, doctrine is an attempt to codify what the Bible says.
These doctrinal OPINIONS about what the Bible might be saying can easily be contradictory.

But most Christians won't allow for doctrinal contradictions. "They can't all be right."
And so we argue over which ones are and which ones aren't.
Claiming the ones we disagree with are unbiblical. - LOL
(even though biblical support is provided)

In this passage the Apostle acknowledges the contradiction.

Romans 5:13-14 NIV
To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given,
but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.
14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses,
even over those who did not sin by breaking a command,
as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

Yes, God provided his doctrine directly to Moses. One can find it in Deuteronomy 5 or Exodus 20.

Can we actually call the Ten Commandments doctrine?
Certainly they were law. But law needs interpretation. IMHO

- What does it mean to have no other gods? Aren't the heavens full of signs (elohim) to follow?
- What does it mean to have no graven images? No art?
- What does it mean to not bow down to them? No art galleries?
- What does it mean to misuse the name of God? Expletives, or vows?
- What does it mean to observe the Sabbath day? Is that really for gentiles?
- What does it mean to honor your father and your mother? To what degree?
- What does it mean to not murder? What about war and capital punishment?
- What does it mean to not steal? Can you steal food for your starving family?
- What does it mean to not give false testimony against your neighbor? Is lying okay otherwise?
- What does it mean to not covet? Can you appreciate the nice things your neighbor has?

The law is like doughnuts, they have holes in the middle where discretion is needed.
That's where doctrine comes in.

John 7:23-24 NIV
Now if a boy can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken,
why are you angry with me for healing a man’s whole body on the Sabbath?
24 Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.”

[

 

[Wick Stick]

Can we actually call the Ten Commandments doctrine?
Certainly they were law. But law needs interpretation. IMHO

I started to reply to this, essentially saying that they can be used either way. I ended up deleting that. I have to think on that for a minute. Interesting question.

 

[St. SteVen]

I started to reply to this, essentially saying that they can be used either way. I ended up deleting that. I have to think on that for a minute. Interesting question.

I think the best quality of doctrine is to bring clarity about what the scriptures are saying.
Not everything about any valid doctrine is only found in one scripture. Nor should it be.
Doctrine should be a collection of all the key thoughts boiled down into a useful form. IMHO

[

 

[Wick Stick]

I think the best quality of doctrine is to bring clarity about what the scriptures are saying.
Not everything about any valid doctrine is only found in one scripture. Nor should it be.
Doctrine should be a collection of all the key thoughts boiled down into a useful form. IMHO

[

I think of doctrine more in terms of being "the official teaching of the church." For instance, the Catholics have their catechism, and most protestant churches have "articles of faith."

To the earlier question, I think the commandments can be taken as doctrine, but it requires us to ponder them at a higher level than just "this is what I must do."

 

[St. SteVen]

I think of doctrine more in terms of being "the official teaching of the church." For instance, the Catholics have their catechism, and most protestant churches have "articles of faith."

Of course.
When you look at a particular doctrine, you will find a statement and biblical support.
There is more involved than just opening a Bible and reading in one place.

[