How Do We Come to the Right Doctrine?

On the forum a thread was started by Jan the other day under the title “the right doctrine.” He begins his contribution like this:

Recently there has been intense discussion on this forum about heavy doctrinal issues. “Does man have a free will?”, “Has God foreordained everything?”. The issue is what the right doctrine is in this. Finding the right doctrine is comparable to finding the right scientific theory for physical (biological and chemical) phenomena. It is also comparable to finding conclusive proof for the guilt of a certain person in a certain crime.
In all these cases there are a limited number of “indications” (Bible texts, physical phenomena, forensic clues, etc.), and it is required that these indications be creatively connected with each other, so that a conclusive “doctrine,” or “theory,” or “legal proof of guilt” arises.

Although I agree with what Jan further brings forward, I protest against the above representation of matters. Biblical doctrine is not obtained by drawing correct conclusions but by simply believing what “is written.” “Sound doctrine” is not a kind of academic theory laboriously obtained by “clever heads.” “Sound doctrine” is the doctrine that is clearly and explicitly taught in Scripture. The only thing needed for this is to let Scripture itself speak, assuming for convenience that the Word of the Bible corresponds with the original text and also that it is not taken out of context.

To determine whether a statement is “sound doctrine,” I do not need to be trained in correct reasoning, but only to ask the question: where is that written in Scripture? I have discovered that this makes my thinking considerably more efficient. This attitude also makes me alert to unsound terminology. I strive for phrases and terms that, as much as possible, are based on the Biblical vocabulary.

When I apply this criterion, many theories already fall through at the first selection. Scripture does not speak of “Trinity” (but indeed that “there is one God, the Father”). Scripture does not speak of “free will” (but indeed that God “is working in you both the willing and the working”). Scripture does not speak of “God the Son” (but of “the Son of God”). Scripture does not speak of an immortal soul (but of “the soul that is sinning — it shall die”). Scripture does not speak of Satan’s fall into sin (but that “the devil is sinning from the beginning”). Scripture does not speak of an endless hell punishment (but that “the living God is Saviour of all men”).

It may be that not everyone is happy with all the examples given, but bear in mind that each one concerns a statement of fact. My point here is not the content of the given examples, but solely to promote that we would derive our assertions directly from what “is written.” Worth mentioning in this connection is also that the word for “confess” in the New Testament is homo logeo. Literally it means “to say the same thing.” Therefore, right or correct confession is by definition not a creative activity, on the contrary, it is (so to speak) like repeating after a parrot.

Delen: