What? Do some say that I have not referred to additional texts that they also call "scripture"? Have I thus erred? Let us see.
One has a text that teaches that Mary the mother of Jesus was only 14 years old when betrothed to a very old Joseph. Yet the very same believe doctrines today that would accuse the Holy Ghost of "assault", and thus, lacking evidence, would imprison Joseph for the supposed "statutory rape" of Mary. If these same believe that their extra text is "scripture", then would they so accuse the Holy Ghost? Would they believe that the Holy Ghost committed what they would call a "heinous crime" upon Mary? God forbid.
Another has a text that teaches that christ David's loving, blessing, and edifying a number of (albeit God-given) wives was an "abomination before the LORD". Yet the very same believe the sequence in 1_Samuel and 2_Samuel of God giving David victory and a couple wives, then additional victories and additional wives, and so on and so on. As well, these very same believe the Revelation 21:8 reference in Scripture that says that the "abominable" (the ultimate of sin) shall suffer fire and brimstone. If these same believe that their extra text is "scripture", then would they accuse God, the provider of David's number of wives, as guilty of so-called "abomination"? Would they believe that Jesus' ancestor, the Spirit-filled patriarch, prophet, and christ David, would suffer fire and brimstone? God forbid.
There is also a great and unfortunate irony with these two. The one whose text is close to being correct (situationally speaking) had would-be prophets later declare contradictory doctrines that were in error. Conversely, the other whose text is in error (situationally speaking) had would-be prophets later declare contradictory doctrines that were close to being correct. The dichotomy these create is that having prophets that contradict their extra would-be "scriptures" therefore calls both (such "scripture" and "prophets") into question. This is especially true if one had been deemed a prophet because of such extra would-be "scripture" in the first place. (If a prophet is deemed a prophet because of that extra "scripture", and if that extra "scripture" contradicts previous TRUE Scripture, could that prophet then truly be perceived as a prophet if that "prophet-creating" extra "scripture" was not TRUE in the first place?)
If these ones want to have extraneous beliefs, having little bearing on salvation, that is one thing ---although they must be preciously careful about what their beliefs "accuse", considering what Jesus said in Luke 6:37a-d: "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned". However, if they seek only TRUTH, that is another thing. For the latter, must they not acknowledge such error and come only to the TRUTH, discarding those other manmade creeds, writings, and doctrines?
Anyway, there are many more manmade doctrines which contradict Scripture (and not only with the two just mentioned), but I cannot begin to detail them all here. Surely, what would others say about the Holy Ghost and David for each "taking" a woman of another man, out of whom would be born our Lord Jesus? (No, I did NOT just call the Holy Ghost a "man".) What would they say about that which the daughters both of Jairus and Herodias have in common with Abishag and Rebekah? But I spare you. As our Lord and Saviour said in John 16:12: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now."
© June 4, 1995, The Standard Bearer
P.O. Box 765, O.O.B., ME 04064