Can Christians always tell when they are wrong about doctrine?

Exegesis

1. What was the intended meaning of the writer to his readers in his day?

2. What traditions/culture influence would have guided/directed influenced the readers.

3. How does the author use the same teaching in his other writings.

4. How do other bible authors reference that same doctrine?

5. Does the Bible give keys- rules for interpreting a given symbol?

6. Are there "inconvenient details" in the text that a given view "must ignore"?

7. Is this a parable? If so what is the "clear intent" clear "teaching" that the parable is meant to convey?

ETC.

in Christ,

Bob

 

So we all agree that it is seldom that Christians know that they are in error and we all agree that the source of error is most often the mixing of bias or man-made-tradition with what we are reading in scripture so that we "read through a lense" that ignores details that don't fit bias.

How do we address the problem individually?

in Christ,

Bob

 

No question this is where the rubber meets the road.

As I often point out - take Peter in Matt 16 -- he just stated that Christ is the Son of God - the true predicted Messiah -- then he "corrects Christ" saying "Oh no Lord may it never be".

And what does Christ say? "Get thee behind Me satan".

There is a difficulty here that even Christ's disciples had to overcome.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Good point -- doctrinal discovery must start with prayer and submission -- choosing what you find in scripture over all pre-bias.

Can't live with it- can't live without out.

Our interpretation is flawed - because we are sinful flawed beings. Recognizing this we must choose to submit to the Spirit of God in allowing scripture to be the "interpreter of scripture" EVEN though like the Jews of old - the human tendancy is for MAN to be the interpreter.

We must fight it every time we study.

The problem is that almost everyone says "you took that out of context" IF the result of the text is a "doctrine I do not prefer".

And obviously that IS NOT the true definition of "context" but it is the MOST COMMON one used even on this board.

So it might be nice to mark that sinful tendancy down and deliberately confront it in our own Bible studies.

That is a great point.

I was hoping this topic would go that direction.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Another great point.

For example Genesis 1-8 is not an exhaustive record of everything said or done for 1600 years.

Amen!

in Christ,

Bob

 

True - but it might help for us to write down our bias first and then admit that this is the "filter" that we will need to resist in reading the text - because we already "want scripture to say that".

This is good.

Another point is -- "are there some inconvenient details in this chapter or verse that I need to ignore to cling to my preferred interpretation"

Indeed -the Bible is to be taken literally except in parables or when an obvious symbol is used.

And another way to state E -- "what would the immediate primary audience - the contemporary reader have gotten from the way this was written"

Excellent!

in Christ,

Bob

 

This is a good point - Matt 22 is a good example of "doctrinal debate" between Christ and the Sadducees. Let's see how your method holds up.

1. To understand it you have to account for the obvious meaning of Christ's words to Sadducees

2. You must admit to the context of the OT stories he was referencing.

3. You must keep in mind the context of the debate --
a. his stated "purpose" in PROVING the "resurrection" to a group that did not believe in the resurrection

b. a hostile audience that would not "simply take Christ's Word for it".

c. In a debate with a hostile group - the only way to "convince" or "silence" is to use premise arguments that they agree with and then force them down a path where there is only one solution - one way out -- and in this case that must be "the resurrection".

Using the methods you have outlined the conclusion can be determined easily - but it will shake cherished beliefs - prio-bias to the very core.

 

If Christians can not tell when they are in doctrinal error - what chance do they have in discussions on this board to "discover the fact"?

 

Scribe has just started a thread on 2Thess 2 regarding the dilusions of those who "do not receive a love of the truth" -- but given that most people on this thread agreed that Christiains seldom know that they are clinging to error - how does the "strong delusions" warning come in -- from 2Thess 2?