Occam's Razor

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Occams Razor can and should be applied to all doctrine. If a particular piece of church doctrine relies on only one particular verse, or even several versus in a row AND requires engaging in yoga-like contortions to get it to mean something and your particular denomination has built a large % of its Statement of Faith on it, perhaps it is NOT a heaven or hell issue, or most likely, not an issue at all.

Here is what you stated, Randy. (Or is it Wayne? If you're from the south we can call you Ray-Wayne? Or just Ray-Way? sorry.... lol)

You said it should be 'applied to all doctrine'. This is a misuse of the principle expounded by Occam. It is not 'the simplest explanation is the preferred one.' Look at what Occam's Razor is - "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily."

The key word is unnecessarily. The doctrine of how to reconcile bible statements that Christ is God, with bible statements that He is man, can be reduced to 'the simplest explanation'. The simplest explanation is that the bible is wrong and contradictory. The correct explanation is hypostatic union (or some variation thereof), which is most certainly not the simplest explanation.

Why did Christ die? The 'simplest' explanation is that he ticked off the government. The correct explanation has to do with sin, atonement, propitiation, justification, the incarnation, prophecy, and a multitude of other things.

Again, Occam's Razor is not to be used to decide between proposed meanings of scripture.

While it is true that a doctrine which relies upon extra-scriptural resources or 'evidence', or which violates fundamental rules of logic and reason (and thus is irrational, illogical, and self-contradictory) should be suspect, as opposed to doctrine which simply and concisely affirms the biblical data, nevertheless that is not Occam's Razor. That is scientific investigation, logic, and common sense.

[Esaias]

Now, applying Occam's Razor to theology... is it possible?

What are the competing theories which predict the same event?

If Oneness and Trinity are competing theories, do they predict the same event?

I would argue they do not, and therefore Occam's Razor does not apply. I would further argue that trinitarianism is inherently self-contradictory, and therefore is to be rejected, not because it is 'more complex' than Oneness, but because it is false and impossible.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by StillStanding

Do the people in our churches completely understand our doctrinal stance and beliefs, or do they simply trust what they hear from our pulpits? I believe a very small percentage of saints AND PREACHERS could logically explain every belief. This applies to both Trinnies and Oneness folks.

The reason for this is because most people in churches - laity and clerics together - have little understanding of Scripture due to not actually studying Scripture in any serious way.

There is a lack of qualified teachers, too many are teaching nonsense, and therefore the people do not understand as much as they should.

[bbyrd009]

Originally Posted by Esaias

All of the above.

A great defense of a principle of Scripture, E; OR could not, ever, be applied to It, as It is the Living Word. The simplest explanation of a passage may suffice for a start, but any student of Scripture--which I have to say is exclusively the Bible, as far as I have been able to discover--can tell you that that explanation will almost surely be superceded upon later reflection and application to life; and then superceded again, quite possibly.

There are many passages for which a first read provides no choices to apply OR to; or rather, the choices are essentially nonsense--to a man.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

A great defense of a principle of Scripture, E; OR could not, ever, be applied to It, as It is the Living Word. The simplest explanation of a passage may suffice for a start, but any student of Scripture--which I have to say is exclusively the Bible,

Which Bible?

as far as I have been able to discover

How did you discover this?

[bbyrd009]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Which Bible?

Hmm, for me, which Bible is not important, as any substantial study would consider them all; with lexicon and commentaries, for that matter. The lex will get you to the root language, with Strong's numbers providing more depth...this is how I came to believe that Armageddon is a spiritual war; by researching "Har" and "Megiddo" online. If I remem right, "The place on the mount, up from the sea, where the people meet to overcome evil." (with an undertone of self-immolation {cutting}, apropriately) I say 'researching;' the whole (initial) study took like an hour.

Originally Posted by Timmy

How did you discover this?

Ha by reading all the others, of course; more than once. I find the Tao the most useful, on a practical basis, but it does not reverberate like Scripture; neither does the Qur'an, so far anyway. My theory is that they focus on man's failings, and so are in a sense 'dead' spiritually. I note that they are both pretty clear upon first reading, whereas there is still a lot of Scripture that just makes no sense to me, and the relevant commentary (usually) strikes me as...well, they were written by better men than I, so nvrmnd.