H2Andy:
you would, of course.
note how all Biblical Christian doctrines can be summed up in a few senteneces. it ain't rocket science. you take it from the Bible, you say it, and it's over.
This is your opinion on Christian doctrin but not necessarily an accurate statement about Christian doctrin. If it were, the Bible would only be a a couple of pages in length.
how many pages did those guys take? how many unlreated Bible verses did they have to mesh together?
it's a strained effort, and it shows.
I don't think it was a strained effort. The way we validate doctrin is to see how it holds up in light of the whole Bible.
Also of course not all aspects of what we might consider doctrin or Biblcal views on various subjects is really so simple. For eample, using scripture, how would you describe a Biblical view of managing ones recourses or finances?
the simple (and the Biblical) answer, is that Jesus is the way to the father. anyone who does not go through Jesus, goes into the lake of fire.
(see? simple, easy, and one sentence)
That is simple. More acturately we could state the protestant view by saying that salvation is by grace through faith. However, we could use scripture from the beginning of the Bible all the way to the end to illustrate why we believe it's a valid doctrin. Your simple sentance also doesn't explain how to go to the Father through Jesus or why Jesus is the way. We would use many scriptures from all through the Bible to explain that how and why. In explaining what grace is or what it means to have faith (which your simple sentance doesn't begin to address) we could, again, use many scriptures from many parts of the Bible.
If you recall, earlier in the thread, I did exactly that. I used lots of scriptures to try to illustrate and support a few basic points. There too, you refered to them as unrelated scriptures. They were not unrelated.
So, yes, many aspects of doctrin can be summed up in very brief statements but illustrating, supporting and fully understanding those doctrines requires the use of the whole Bible.
You seem to tend to take simple summary statements, present them as a complete statement of doctrin and argue them without using much scripture to support your arguement. In doing so you leave Gods words out and put your own words in their place. That's fine if what you're interested in is the gospel according to Andy but it isn't very useful if someone wants Gods word on the subject.
The article tried to examine the question of salvation where incomplete knowledge of the gospel exists. They were absolutely correct in using many scriptures from all over the Bible in their attempt. To do othewrwise would be for them to present their own answer rather than God's answer.
By contrast you used one refernece to the book of Revelation (as I recall) to support your assertion that billions of people were going to fry unjustly. Rather than a complete Biblical treatment of the question we get the gospel according to Andy...which we know to be non-Biblical right off the bat because it asserts that God isn't just when we know that there are many many scriptures that clearly illustrate that He is absolutely just. In fact the perfectness of His justice and wisdom and the fallibility of our own is a major theme that runs through the entire Bible. So another way we know the gospel according to Andy to be false is because of your claim that your wisdom is more sound than Gods (remember when you said that you could do better?) when we know that no wisdom of man can measure up. Again, the way we validate doctrin is by comparing scriture with scripture and not by making sweeping statements from a single scripture. Those we would consider "false teachers might take that approach but the Bible warns us about them and gives us quit a bit of insight on how to spot them. They are all over the place and many are very visable...yet more evidence of Biblical truth.
