I like that doctrine. I'll call it "Danielism" and sign up.Danieltwotwenty wrote:Jac3510 wrote:So why do you think that our doctrines concerning our "creation stances" are just "inventions of our fleshly minds," but our doctrines we call things like "biblical inerrancy," "salvation by grace through faith alone," "sola scriptura," "sin," "baptism," and "the Trinity," among hundreds of others aren't just "inventions of our fleshly minds"?Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:I agree! All our ''creation stances'' are inventions of our fleshly minds, as the arguments that often accompany them testify.
All doctrines are unimportant, all we have to do is believe in Jesus.
So . . . wait . . . why is it that our "creation stances" are just "inventions of our fleshly minds" but "Danielism" isn't?
I like that doctrine, too! I'll call it "Clownism," and I will preach it from now on.RickD wrote:Jac, your Doctrines on biblical inerrancy, salvation by grace through faith, sola Scriptura, sin, baptism, and the trinity, are from God. But your YEC creation stance is from your fleshly mind.Jac3510 wrote:So why do you think that our doctrines concerning our "creation stances" are just "inventions of our fleshly minds," but our doctrines we call things like "biblical inerrancy," "salvation by grace through faith alone," "sola scriptura," "sin," "baptism," and "the Trinity," among hundreds of others aren't just "inventions of our fleshly minds"?Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:I agree! All our ''creation stances'' are inventions of our fleshly minds, as the arguments that often accompany them testify.
But . . . wait . . . why is it that our "creation stances" are just "inventions of our fleshly minds" but "Clownism" isn't?
------------------
Seriously, it's self-defeating to say that some doctrines are of human creation and others are not, because any such statement is itself doctrinal. You can certainly say that some doctrines are less important and offer a defense for that claim--i.e., issues that directly affect the gospel are more important than those that don't, but our doctrines concerning creation do not directly affect the gospel, therefore our doctrines concerning creation do not directly affect the gospel. I would even buy that for real! But we don't get to say that one doctrine is a human invention and another from God, that one is from "our fleshly minds" and the other not. It seems to me that, in the present context, such an argument is made solely to dismiss debates over the doctrine of creation. And if you're going to that, I'd prefer you just say, "You know, I don't really care about that debate," which is fine and can't be argued with, than putting forward . . . something less than sound.
I take it, by the way Rick, that you were being silly, just poking fun. But all the same, I think the point is worth making.
fights are so juvenile! 
by 
we evolved 
and now - currently 
who mentioned marriage of two humans - man and woman to 
and 
so that 
would continue...
+ 
+ 
) + ( 
x 
) = Y.E.C 
