There is doctrine based on the entire Bible and not just a few verses? Cool. That must have been a major feat of mental comprehension and memory retention.
Beleive it or not, there are people who truly know the whole Bible rather than just a few verses. When defining a doctrine, it is always good to use something called hermeneutics:
*** The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 ***
Hermeneutics \Her`me*neu"tics\, n. [Gr. ? (sc. ?).]
The science of interpretation and explanation; exegesis;
esp., that branch of theology which defines the laws whereby
the meaning of the Scriptures is to be ascertained.
--Schaff-Herzog Encyc.
[1913 Webster]
It has been said that the three laws of hermeneutics are "context, context, context". Take for example, the explaination given earlier for Rom.1:18-20 of:
OK, so God is evident to everyone in what he's made? So if you're an obscure tribe living in the middle of a rainforest and you've never come into contact with so called civilisation you couldn't get any closer to nature and the wonders of what God has done, could you? So if you believe there is a supreme being, it must be God, even if you refer to him as Bagingi and he has the head of a monkey.
I've just done all the missionaries out of a job, no need to convert anyone there:jiggy: .
violates hermeneutics when one takes into consideration Matt.28:16-20 (otherwise known as the great commission).
What verses are you referring to which explain how God can make what is known about him "evident" yet all people do not recognise him? In other words, how can one be evident and misunderstood?
Sure, just read the next two verses (Rom. 1:21-22) or you can also take into consideration my favorite Biblical explaination of this in Rom.3:11 "There is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God". While you are intent on blaming God the Bible blames humans for various reasons.
Also how can an "invisible nature" be "clearly seen"?
In the same way the wind, which in itself is invisible, can be clearly seen, by the evidence it leaves behind. If you are going to deny that, you may as well deny many of the historical sciences which are based on historical evidence.
But here I go being a big fat hypocrite and going way off subject after accusing others of doing the same thing, so my apologies to the OP and Lady Lazarus
Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria
