Conflicting doctrine taught in Scripture?


#1

Yesterday, I was listening to a Protestant minster from Calvary chapel on the radio talking about arguing with other Christians, and trying to prove your interpretation of what doctrine is taught in scripture.

He made the comment about the “once saved always saved” doctrine which caught my attention.

This Pastor said that he doesn’t argue it because both sides if the issue are taught in scripture.
He also went on to say that we don’t need an outside source of authority to interpret scripture, that every believer is led by the Holy Spirit to the truth.

Can this be true, can the bible teach conflicting doctrine, I thought the bible was inerrant.
I am guessing that he deemed it a “non-essential”, but I would disagree, to me this is a very important doctrine, which could lead many to Hell, if they are incorrect on it.

The Apostle Paul seemed to think that holding to the one doctrine was very important, but I don’t recall him saying that there are conflicting doctrines which Christians can follow either side. He seems to be saying hold to the ‘doctrine’, not to the ‘doctrines’.

**Rom 16:17 ** I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.

Eph 4:14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.

1Ti 1:3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine,

**1Ti 4:6 ** If you put these instructions before the brethren, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the good doctrine which you have followed.

**Tts 1:9 ** he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it.

**Tts 2:1 ** But as for you, teach what befits sound doctrine.

Maybe this attitude of conflicting doctrine taught in scripture could be applied to other issues also, like baptism is necessary for salvation, and baptism is not necessary for salvation, we are saved by faith alone, and we are not saved by faith alone.

Maybe we should just hold to what we believe the Holy Spirit tells us scripture is teaching.
Sometimes the Holy Spirit will tell one person a truth, and another person will be told that another conflicting doctrine is the truth.

Does the bible teach conflicting doctrine?
And if it does indeed teach conflicting doctrine, does that mean that doctrine is not important?
Should every Christian just hold to what he believes to be true?


#2

The mistake is in thinking that the bible teachs doctrine. It confirms doctrine, but it does not teach doctrine - the doctrine existed before the New Testament was written.


#3

Then what word would I use to explain that the bible would teach that we can never lose our salvation, and that we can lose our salvation, which would contradict each other.
That Pastor said that the bible teaches both sides of the issue.


#4

Then what word would I use to explain that the bible would teach that we can never lose our salvation, and that we can lose our salvation, which would contradict each other.
That Pastor said that the bible teaches both sides of the issue.

The person who said the bible teaches both concepts of salvation has to be one who takes single passages out to be the foundation of a doctrine. The Cathlolic Church views scripture in its fulness and context to show conformity with all of God’s Word, both written and orally handed down. Picking selective one-liners can lead to many different interpretations (and many different denominations and churches).

Many bible preachers preach a gospel, but not The Gospel.

The “once saved always saved” concept I believe was pushed by John Calvin in his reform and has been a relatively new “idea” that was never believed for more than fifteen centuries. One has to ask why no one ever taught this before.

mdcpensive1


#5

Imagine someone picking up the Complete Works of Shakespeare today and trying to make sense of it without knowing the sense of what the words meant in their original Elizabethan English sense.

Or the poet Robbie Burns for that matter.

The New Testament was written by Catholics for Catholics. The are the written works of the Catholic Church and, thus, the Catholic Church alone has the right to give the authentic interpretation of their meaning.

She does so with the knowledge of Teachers and Writers throughout her nealy 2000 years of exisence.


#6

“The Bible teaches” is in and of itself a fallacy. Calvary Chapel tends to be extremely anti-Catholic, and in major theological error. If you are looking for Truth, trust what the Bible says about what the pillar and bulwark of truth is. (1 Timothy 3:15) Don’t base your understanding of truth on the whims of your own understanding of Scripture.(See Proverbs 3:5) Realize that while the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ. (Matthew 16:17-19), Calvary Chapel was founded by men like those who St. Peter warned us about. (2 Peter 3:16.)


#7

There is also a problem with the difference between a literalistic understanding of Scripture, and taking it literally.

Take the two versions of Creation in Genesis. In one version God made man after the animals, in the other the order is reversed. Is there a conflict? No, we understand that the story is a lesson that creation comes from God, not exact science.

We have to read the NT in the light of the OT, and look at the overall picture.

He also went on to say that we don’t need an outside source of authority to interpret scripture, that every believer is led by the Holy Spirit to the truth.

So, we needed a source of authority to determine which Gospels and Epistles made the cut, but then we can dismiss that authority?

I wonder if he takes the writings of the ECFs into consideration when reading, to determine what a particular passage meant to the early Church.


#8

Hi

In my opinion, perhaps the holy spirit does not talk to the Christians as they are not truly following JesusYeshuaIssa’s teachings, they are following Paul’s teachings that are faulty.

It is more of the enthusiasm of a person than the holy spirit.

Thanks


#9

This is the kind of pompous arrogance that keeps people from taking anything you say seriously.


#10

Which part of it was incorrect?


#11

Feel free to stop her, when she starts making thing up!


#12

He didn’t claim she was making things up. He just claimed she was being pompous and arrogant.

Of course, he did it in a pompous and arrogant way… :ehh:


#13

Mature christians learn to find the balance of “conflicting doctrines” in scripture. Basicaly there is a balance between “free will” and “predestination” ( hint, it is in the nature of God ). One simply needs to listen to the proof texts from both sides, list what is true and what is assumption read into the text. look at how these positions effects the nature of God. and often you will see the balance which has to do with God’s Omni attributes, forknowledge, etc. Also, look at weird new doctrines like the “open view” of God to see what they are getting right and what they are getting wrong by exagerations or mental gymastics.

**Exagerations and Mental Gymastics tells you automatically what is wrong. **


#14

If you want to see some creative mental gymastics ask a OSAS about Eze 18 or Hebrews 6:4-6, it becomes amazing to watch.


#15

I find some of Jesus’ parables bring the greatest amount of mental gymnastics among both OSAS and Pre-destinationists.


#16

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.