Recently I had the misfortune of watching a short video where a nice, clean cut gentleman told me that I can get “€œan idea of how sincere my love for Jesus is” by asking myself, “€œHow much do I love the Scriptures?”€ So far, we’€™re doing good. But then he goes one step further and equates Scripture with doctrine. He even goes so far to imply that if someone does not “€œpassionately defend” doctrinal truth they may not be sincere. He told me that doctrinal truth bears the image of Christ. He informed me that if I don’t defend doctrine I cannot love Christ. “€œThere is no room for personal interpretation,”€ he confidently informs his listeners and me. It was no surprise then when I found other videos that this gentleman did where he “solved” the age-old disagreement between Armenians and Calvinists. Think about the audacity of that statement. In yet another clip he tells me that God may not talk to me or anyone else anymore.
I’m sure this fellow is a good guy. I imagine that he is pretty devoted to his faith and in following Christ. I’€™m not here to attack him, but I do want to look at his assertion that Scripture equals doctrine.
We should first start with what the Bible tells us about what is truth. In John 14 Jesus tells us that he is “the way, the truth and the life.” Almost all of us would agree that God is truth. That is to say, that God is the embodiment of all truth. There can be no truth apart from God. God is truth. God is absolute truth. It is at this point that most conversations will usually turn a little “€œsnarky.”€Â
Is the Bible in your house truth? Is it pure truth? Are there any errors in it? At this point, I have to step back and ask you the reader to stay with me to the end. The truth is we have many translations of the Bible today and I believe what we have is the face of what God wants us to have, but there are errors in each translation. The original text that God gave us was perfect. We do not have that text any longer. What is amazing is you can take one copy of a passage and another copy both being hundreds of years apart in age and they are almost identical. This lends credence to their validity.
There was a guy named Erasmus who actually admitted to adding a few things when he made a copy because it helped explain the Trinity better. The Bible was originally written in languages other than English (Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic). Translating anything from one language to another is a difficult task. For one, the mindset of the hearer will almost certainly be different in the original language. This is why it is so important to understand how the original listeners would have understood whatever passage of Scripture you are looking at.
God is Truth. The Original text is perfect. The Bible(s) I have in my house and the one’s you have in your house are not perfect they are translations of copies.
Now, for years preachers and those in charge have tried to minimize or hide this truth. The fear is that it will open the door for us the simple to start questioning everything there is to know about God. A guy I really respect once related a story to me about how a young lady rejected all of Scripture because a well known preacher began 
“€œmonkeying”€ with the text.
As I have attempted to illustrate in my drawing by the time we get to doctrine we are a few steps away from absolute truth. Your doctrine is a result of interpretation of translations of copies of the original truth.
At this point you are faced with one of two choices (I hate that phrase because I am sure there is probably more choices out there but these are the most common choices). You can either end up in Peter Ruckman’s camp and spout something just short of insanity about how the KJV is the authoritative version or you have to be willing to wrestle with tension.
The great danger in Christianity has always been that we try to make everything manageable, we try to make incredibly complex things makes sense. Christianity, especially conservative, Calvinistic Christianity has attempted to reduce the Bible to something that is a compilation of logical, irrefutable arguments. The result has been a bastardized version of honest faith. We’ve compared having a relationship with God to sitting on a chair, we€™’ve created two diagnostic questions and done all sorts of stupid things. Worse, we have created our little doctrine clubs and call it church. We have elevated doctrine above God. We worship at the alter of doctrine and systematic theology. What other conclusion can be drawn when a man takes the time to make a movie where he compares love of Scripture with love of doctrine?
So you can chose the absolute way, where there is no room for discussion…or…you can chose the honest way. You can chose to admit that our doctrine is the best interpretation we have, but there is room for discussion. I believe that the Bible is the face of what God wants us to have. In other words the key doctrines are clearly in all of the copies.
We as a bride of Christ need to decide how many doctrines are we willing to die over. We need to decide as a Church where is the line between this is what I believe but I could be wrong. 
I know there are those who fear this will open up all of the Scriptures to be questioned but is that bad? Didn’t™ Paul tell the Bereans to test everything? What is so bad if every doctrine we have is tested?
Most of the people I know who would oppose this idea are afraid. They are afraid of what might happen. You can “what if” yourself to death. If what we say we believe is true (and I believe it is) then it cannot be stopped. Truth always finds its way to the top.
I know for some of you that is a scary proposition and you may even be reacting with some anger for me right now,that’s ok. Embrace the tension; embrace the mystery. If you think your theology and doctrine is helping you explain the more difficult aspects of the gospel be cautious. Remember one ancient writer put it this way,
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.”
How do you “€œprove”€ or explain something you cannot see?
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
33 Comments(+Add)
A much better post than your previous one. Wow, a Peter Ruckman sighting! Doctrine just means teaching, the compilation of the Scriptural thread that leads to truth. All of the things you have said are legitimate, so the ultimate question is what teachings (doctrines) are non negotiable and absolute for the Christian faith?
My personal list – The Person of Jesus, salvation by grace through faith alone, the gospel facts, and the ten toes of Daniel’s vision. (one of these was a joke, can you find it?)
The problem with some today is what impact would denying the doctrine of hell have on the eseentials? What about overlooking works teachings in some denominations? These and other issues can be a slippery slope that will compromise the essential teachings (doctrines) of the church even to the point of teaching that an unreached sinner can be saved if he believes in a god and lives right.
The Scriptures are inerrant, but as you point out man’s teachings are not. So that presents a dilemma. We do have church history to help guide and provide parameters. In these days it is a paramount issue because in the worst case scenario truth will lie dead in the streets and like Samson we will not even know it is gone.
A thoughful post, not like the one about what’s his name!
On many of the big issues – the fall of man, the nature of sin, the nature of God, what happens eternally to people who don’t believe in Jesus, sexual purity, just what the gospel is – many people aren’t interested in a study of scripture of ANY translation. They come up with ideas that best fit their own thinking of how they think God should be. Eventually (and already) these false ideas will make their way into translations, not because they represent any possible interpretation of any of the texts from which translations are made, but because they fit men’s (and the angel of light’s) distortions of what truth is.
And some of the people who come up with very false ideas about what scripture says will justify their wrong thinking by pointing to the fact that we don’t have the originals, translations differ, so we can’t really know what God meant in the first place.
Amy, you very right. The thing is we can’t allow those people (the one’s who would make translations to fit their own agenda) cause us to make statements or equations that Scripture doesn’t make. One guy emailed me and said that he thinks some people fear the “cult” leaders (Jones, Koresh, etc) but the problem when we go the other way is that we have to use the same kind of logic or argument that they use.
My personal list of essentials:
(1) Was the wine Jesus made fermented or grape juice?
(2) Are tongues for today?
(3) Did Paul worship with instramental music?
(4) Can I work on Sunday?
(5) Was Jesus in the ground 3 nights or 2?
(6) Was Peter the first pope?
(7) Was Paul a Calvinist?
This blog is an excellent example of what happens when the inmates run the asylum.
Paul taught doctrine. Jesus taught doctrine. You are confusing dogma, with the doctrine of Scripture. If you want to see where non-scriptural dogma leads, just look at Rome..
The Bible is to be taken for what it says and for what it doesn’t say. It is to be read literally, and it is black and white.
What the post-modern pansies want, is confusion, so they create it themselves.
“I know for some of you that is a scary proposition and you may even be reacting with some anger for me right now,that’s ok. Embrace the tension; embrace the mystery. ”
One gets so tired of this drivel.
Who is afraid? Only those who are scared to death that there may be absolute Truth.
The only mystery is that the Lord hasn’t pulled the plug on the whole mess.
As for Hebrews 11:1 Faith is the essence of God’s Word i.e. His promises, and the evidence that the the promises of God are real. IOW, faith is the thing until it is manifest in our lives.
The rest of the chapter explains that all the OT saints mentioned, died in faith, based on what is stated in verse 1.The chapter finishes by saying this was done so that we could receive the better thing now, without them having received it before us. they still saw it. It was real. We receive it together so to speak. This chapter is not talking about the faith of the readers of this letter. They did not have to prove or not prove anything, as it was already known to them.
“Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.”
John 8:56
he Bible makes sense because the Lord wrote it.
Are you saying that doctrine, especially Calvinistic doctrine, is based on errors in the Bible? I’d like a couple of examples to see for myself. Imagine all those thousands of Christian men who still missed it even after rigorously searching the Scriptures all these years.
Tim, If that is the question you have then I can only conclude that you are coming here looking for a fight. BTW, couldn’t your last statement be said about the thousands of Christian men who rigorously searched the Scriptures and came up with conclusions differing from Calvin?
Tim, what version of the Bible do you use? Is it perfect? Are there any errors in it?
No, I’m not looking for a fight. Can’t I ask an honest question?
Ok, then I was wrong. Forgive me.
I’m saying all doctrine (no matter who it is) is based on interpretation of translations from non-perfect texts. To equate to the level of Scripture is dangerous at best and “cultic” at worst. IMO, those with a Calvinistic bend are the most susceptible to what I call “logic” theology.
Forgiven. Now, I mainly use the New King James Version but obviously this wasn’t around when the Calvinistic doctrine was written out. I assume that John Wycliffe and others who followed after him went to the Hebrew, Armanic, and Greek text to derive the doctrinal statements, Calvinistic and otherwise.
So what are the errors in the original languages that led to doctrinal misinterpretation? Was the doctrine of election based on an error in the original languages? Was it some other facet of Calvinistic doctrine based on erroronous text? Sure, I’m skeptical that such exist but I’d like to see it if you believe in such.
I don’t believe that there are errors in the original text. They are completely inspired and perfect by God. In the copies (even the one’s that we have in the original languages) there are errors. Erasmus’ adding of a word in I John is just one example. That word was added to aid in the teaching of the Trinity. I’m not here to attack Calvinism or Armenians or any other particular Doctrine. What I am trying to say is that a person cannot elevate their church doctrine to the level of Scripture. The group that believes in eternal security cannot call the group that doesn’t believe in it heretics nor vice versa.
There is much that I may take issue with Calvin on but that isn’t the point of this post.
The point of the post is the danger when we try to equate Scripture with Doctrine and we try to make all of the Bible fit into a neat little box that makes complete 100% sense. With all due respect to Chris P. it just doesn’t.
No doctrine is based on errors in the Scripture, the errors are in men’s minds. One doctrine that Calvin pulled out of a hat is limited atonement. Even Calvin added this because he thought it must be true because of his other points.
He redefined clear Biblical words like all, world, every, and others to fit his personal dogma. He was wrong and the Scripture is right.
So the point of this post is that since teachings that claim to be gleaned from Scripture can be wrong, what teachings must be true to support Christianity. BTW, Houston John has a great list!.
“This part of this comment has been deleted
And for the umpteenth time, the issue is not Calvinism. The doctrine of election is as old as Abraham who, by the way, is just a couple years before Calvin. Exactly what did this worshiper of the “moon god-demon” do to be chosen by the only God there is? Answer: Nothing.
Ken,
If Calvinism is as old as Abe then where are all the Calvinist Rabbis running around? And how is it that it wasn’t taught for around 3500 years since then? Good thing that Calvin managed to correct the apostles, and the prophets or we’d be screwed. Oh right, I forgot only an apostate, damned teacher like Rob Bell worries about what Jewish people think, I mean, its not like they wrote the Bible, formed most of the early church in the early chapters of Acts, or were covenanted with the living God or anything.
Its also amazing to me that Chris P can miss the point of a post so badly. Joe writes a post detailing how flawed doctrine can be produced by the reading of scripture and then Chris P pops up and says “nuh uh, scripture produces pure doctrine”, as if that wasn’t the point being addressed to begin with. Replacing the word “dogma” with “doctrine” isn’t really solving anything. What Chris P is really saying is “I have solved scripture completely and totally, and anyone disagreeing with me is wrong like those dirty nasty Catholics who are on their way to hell”. Congrats Chrissy, you’ve just become every Hollywood stereotype of preachers out there. Enjoy your illustrious career as the bumbling buffoon in every Inherit the Wind redux that comes out down the line.
The issue is not Calvinism solely, but the way in which many Calvinists present their doctrine as a revelation from Almighty God is an issue. Some hyper-calvinists claim that only calvinists are saved. By the way, I’ve used my free will to reject that teaching. What doctrines (teachings) are non-negotiable in Christianity? That is the question.
Can you believe that the Scriptures contain absolute truth but are not inerrant and be a Christian? Can you believe the Genesis account of creation is not literal and be a Christian? Can you believe in theistic evolution and be a Christian?
The core immutable teachings of the Bible, what are they? This post exposes us sometimes as being dogmatic about interpretations and rightly so. If that be the case, I would like to know what are the unalterable doctrines that must be accepted by the body of Christ?
Henry, that is an excellent question. I will look forward to seeing the responses.
I think it’s as easy out to say that the Bible has errors without addressing them. I may or may not agree but in order to have a valid argument about the errors that one thinks are in the Bible we have to address what we believe those errors are one by one. Only then can we sort this out. IMOHO it can’t be handled as a generic statement, we have to be specific.
Which version would you like to discuss first Scotty? That’s the thing, each translation has its own issues.
Any version you’d like, Joe. Let’s do ‘em all. I don’t see any other way.
Actually, let’s take Henry’s approach and talk about the essential Doctrines. Then we can work backwards.
BTW, are you saying there aren’t any translational issues? Are you saying there aren’t any difference between some of the texts? If so, I’ve already brought out one issue in the KJV (AV 1611) with I John and Erasmus.
I’m not saying this in a demeaning way but, I think it would intellectual laziness to point out that the various translations have errors and then not address them. To take certain doctrines and then reverse engineer them is not necessarily the way to go either. By doing that I think that one(I’m not saying that anyone here is doing this) could easily attempt to make a personal thought into a doctrinal issue by taking scripture out of context to prove a certain doctrine. We need to take the Bible first, then bring doctrine forth from it.
The gentleman you mentioned in the video, was it errors in translations that led him to his viewpoints or was it the mishandling of God’s word? Is it the errors that change the meaning of verses so much that it requires us to question doctrine or do we use the error issues as the excuse to downplay a doctrine we don’t agree with.
I think what I’m trying to say here is, we have to make a stand and decide if the translation differences are enough to change the whole intent of scripture and it’s use for doctrine. I know I don’t need to type the verses out that point to us using the scriptures for reproof and doctrine. My concern is where do we start to make concessions for the sake of translation issues or errors.
Am I saying that there are no translation issues? Yes for the most part. . Of course that’s leaving the obvious out of the picture as with the New World Translation( Jehovah’s Witnesses ). Are there translation errors? Yup, but most of them I don’t see changing the intent or the spirit of the original text. Are some translations weaker than others? Of course that’s obvious. We have to view the whole of the various translations as a whole.
Is doctrine “X” wrong and why. Is it because of an error in text for verse “Y” or is it the mistranslation of verse “Y”. OR is it the bad interpretation of verse “Y” inspite of the translation error. Was Eramus’ admission enough that we dismiss the idea of the Trinity or does it effect most doctrines of the Trinity? I think important questions.
OK, I’ll start the ball rolling with a point that I’m sure will draw some gasps. I don’t believe you must espouse the Trinity to be saved.
..as I toss the doctrinal hand grenade…
I was thinking about your comment today while I was driving Scotty. I think I must have miscommunicated to you the point of this post. What I am saying is that Doctrine is not on equal par with Scripture. Doctrine is man’s interpretation of Scripture. The Scriptures we have are not perfect, that is not debated by any serious student of translations. There has to be room to say we could be wrong. That is the intent of my post. The man I was referencing in the post comes from a reformed background. Essentially he was saying that if you believe in a non-reformed P.O.V. you may not have salvation.
There are core doctrines that must be addressed. But let’s look at women being pastors, that is an issue that is hotly debated. Charismatic Gifts? Another hotly debated doctrinal minefield. Baptism (the forms)–hotly debated doctrine.
It is intellectually dishonest to say that the version I prefer is completely perfect. They all have issues. My doctrine therefore is based on less than perfect translations.
Now, I believe I’d be willing to die for these things:
1. All men are born deserving Hell
2. Jesus was fully God and fully Man. He was born of a Virgin and He lived a sinless life.
3. He died and rose again, three days later.
4. Because of His actions on the cross all men can go to Heaven.
There’s a lot more that I believe but I’m certainly not willing to die for them. I could be wrong. I may change my mind. I’m not sure it’s all that big of a deal to God.
Joe, could you elaborate on the conditions for #4?
Sure the only way you or I or anyone gets into heaven is by the atoning work of Jesus on the cross. I can’t do enough good works, I can’t be a swell enough guy, I have to have faith that Jesus is LORD and God raised Him from the dead. (Romans 10:9-10)
Amen Joe. See you at the Throne!
Rick,
OK. I’ll bite. Elaborate on “espouse” the Trinity and is TD Jakes saved?
Sure Jakes is saved and it isn’t his view of the Trinity that is the major problem. It is his health and wealth teachings. The Trinity is barely taught in the Scriptures and it took the early church quite a long time to settle on it.
I believe it but it is not essential. For instance the oneness doctrine that all three are Jesus is acceptable. After a while it becomes semantics. As long as one believes that Jesus was God in the flesh.
Point taken and understood, Joe. I understand better where you are coming from. I’ll be honest with you I have a hard time most times defining that line between doctrine and Scripture. And, rather than write out an LONG post on what I think, I tend to think much like Rick more than I disagree with him. That’s main reason why I don’t post here often as Rick has a way of stealing my thunder…..I’ve registered my complaint to our Lord about it too, Rick(grins).
And Rick,. as far as those that don’t accept the Trinity? It tends to make me a bit queasy. It’s not so much the belief, it’s the baggage that tends to go along with that belief that most manifest.
Rick,
“For instance the oneness doctrine that all three are Jesus is acceptable. After a while it becomes semantics.”
I’m very surprised to hear that from you. Even a strong modalist defending their position would not agree it’s all semantics when arguing with a Trinitarian.
But the Trinity is one of my essentials because as Scotty intimated above modalists come with lots of other “baggage”.
Scotty,
You said, “I’ve registered my complaint to our Lord about it too, Rick(grins).”
And what did the Lord reply? He said, “Oh, Scotty, go away, I’m busy reading Rick’s writing. He gives “the gift of tongues” a whole new meaning.”
LOL, Amy!! So far all I’ve gotten is a busy signal and a couple of times I think I heard crickets chirping!!