Quote:
Originally Posted by kclee4jc
this is my point
If correctly interpreted i do not believe it takes two scriptures to establish a doctrine. It is when a single scripture is isolated from the context and misconstrued that is shaky ground for establishing a doctrine.
I would say that if you find one scripture that seems to support a certain doctrine, and no other scriptures seem to do so, then it is time to re-examine the context and interpretation.
This is not speaking of the authority of scripture to establish doctrine.
Matthew 18:16
Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
This is...
2 Timothy 3:16
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
It doesnt have to be there twice to be profitable for doctrine. If he said it once and it is taken in the correct context and correctly interpreted, then once is enough. |
For precept must be on precept,
precept on precept;
line on line, line on line;
here a little, and there a little
The precept on precept is to prevent incorrect interpretations of scripture.
It is because that people do not follow the two witness precept that we have so many false doctrines.
Everything I teach is based on at least two scriptures, for years I have always gone by this precept.
I so strongly believe in this precept that I have never once preached a sermon without at least two scriptures.
I can send you a mountain of my sermons and you will see that all my sermons always have 2 scriptures or more, every single one of my sermons.
Threaded Mode
