Shiloh, and anyone else

[apothanein kerdos]

Shiloh,

I saw a comment in the Birthday thread about Ecclesiastes about Solomon being in a state of depression, thus something he wrote wasn't a doctrinal statement.

My question is, what is your take on this, and what are we to learn from the non-doctrinal statement?

I ask because I'm interested and haven't studied the issue all that much. So I'm curious about how you worked it out to that.

[Guest shiloh357]

Well, the point I was making was that Solomon's purpose in saying what he said regarding birth and death were very revealing of the senile state of mind he was in. Solomon in his latter days was very tortured soul. He started out well, but from all appearances, did not finish well. Ecclesiastes is written, from what I can tell by a man who has had it all, and probably seen it all, but yet feels empty and incomplete. All of his wealth and accomplishments, all of his gain, was considered vanity and unfulfilling.

The point I was trying to make is that Ecc. 7:1 should not be used to make a doctrine about birthdays. I am not saying that there is no doctrinal truth in Ecclesiastes, or that it does not contain true biblical doctrine, but as always it take proper hermeneutics to determine those passages meant to be "doctrinal," and those which are not. More to the point, the poster, Beta, who posted the verse only cited half of the verse, and I was responding to the half that was cited.

In reading books like Eccliastes, and other books like Job, I am very careful what I treat as "doctrinal." Much of the book of Job for exampel is taken up by the remarks of three of his friends of whom, God said, spoke falsely. Not everything in the book of Job is true, but everything is truthfully recorded.

Everything in the Bible is presented for benefit and for our learning, and Ecclesiastes is no exception, but that does not, IMO, make everything in the book "doctrinal."

[apothanein kerdos]

Well, the point I was making was that Solomon's purpose in saying what he said regarding birth and death were very revealing of the senile state of mind he was in. Solomon in his latter days was very tortured soul. He started out well, but from all appearances, did not finish well. Ecclesiastes is written, from what I can tell by a man who has had it all, and probably seen it all, but yet feels empty and incomplete. All of his wealth and accomplishments, all of his gain, was considered vanity and unfulfilling.

The point I was trying to make is that Ecc. 7:1 should not be used to make a doctrine about birthdays. I am not saying that there is no doctrinal truth in Ecclesiastes, or that it does not contain true biblical doctrine, but as always it take proper hermeneutics to determine those passages meant to be "doctrinal," and those which are not. More to the point, the poster, Beta, who posted the verse only cited half of the verse, and I was responding to the half that was cited.

In reading books like Eccliastes, and other books like Job, I am very careful what I treat as "doctrinal." Much of the book of Job for exampel is taken up by the remarks of three of his friends of whom, God said, spoke falsely. Not everything in the book of Job is true, but everything is truthfully recorded.

Everything in the Bible is presented for benefit and for our learning, and Ecclesiastes is no exception, but that does not, IMO, make everything in the book "doctrinal."

Fair enough.

My question would then be, what do we do with passages in these that give incorrect doctrine? It's easier in Job because God comes in and says, "your friends are wrong." But what of Ecclesiastes?

[Guest shiloh357]

Perhaps we should define what doctrine is. In my view, it is just dead religion unless it can quicken us to a place of greater faith.

When we are speaking of "doctrine," we are referring to a set of accepted beliefs/ideals which are held by a group. Where Christianity is concerned it is the set of "true" beliefs that define our faith. For example, the belief that God is the creator of the universe and the sole author of the created order, is a doctrine. The belief that Jesus was born of a virgin is a "doctrine."

Furthermore, doctrine can be broken down into subsets namely essential and peripheral doctrine. Essential doctrine amounts to those beliefs about which there can be no compromise such as the deity of Jesus, inerrancy of Scripture, etc.. Peripheral doctrine are those beliefs over which reasonable people can differ such as, "did Jesus drink wine," or whether or not speaking in tongues is for today.

[Guest shiloh357]

Hi Shiloh, thank you for your courtesy.

I agree on those inarguable points of Christian doctrine.

Concerning the more "peripheral" matters as you put it, the body of Christ consists of those who have the Holy Spirit. (Romans 8:9 " But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

That being so, within the body obviously there is evidence of the Spirit at work, and agreement between members that God is still giving gifts, indeed, as the scripture says, He is pouring out His Spirit in the last days.

Since the power of God exists in men through the Holy Spirit, it is important that we get this particular doctrine concerning His ministry right, or risk being among those that have the form of godliness but deny the power thereof.

Blessings!

EphesiansGal

You are exactly right. I guess my point was that they are peripheral in the sense that they do not affect salvation. One cannot be a Christian and reject the Deity of Jesus, for example, but that I would never challenge someone's salvation over whether or not they did or did not believe in tongues. I do agree with you on the importance of the doctrine. "Peripheral" may not have been the best choice of words on my part. Often, it is interpreted as "unimportant," but I am using the term to refer to certain doctrines with respect to their relationship to salvation. The gifts of the Spirit are not a "minor" or "unimportant doctrine, but are peripheral to the issue of salvation. I simply use the term to denote those things about which there exists no salvific value.

[Guest shiloh357]

My question would then be, what do we do with passages in these that give incorrect doctrine? It's easier in Job because God comes in and says, "your friends are wrong." But what of Ecclesiastes?

Exactly, well this is one of those places where I think it makes a good case for highlighting the benefit of proper hermeneutics. I hammer on hermeneutics a lot because it is something that should be not be ignored by the Church. Hermeneutically, passages in books like this one need to be measured against known doctrine. For example, is it true as stated in 7:1 that the day of one's death is better than they day of one's birth? How does that measure up against what Christ taught about abundant life, and the purposes that God has for each of our lives? Would it be better to be dead, than to live for the purpose you were born for?

What do we do with a verse of Scripture that is truthfully recorded but is not necessarily true? Even the words of Satan are truthfully recorded under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but obviously cannot be used for doctrine. Yet, they are recorded for our benefit and instruction!

I think God allows these things to be recorded to teach us important lessons. In Solomon's case, the book of Ecclesiastes is written by a broken man whose riches never brought him happiness. I think God allows us to see, in the book of Ecclesiastes the consequences of trying to find fulfillment in wealth, power and prestige. All of the accolades, all of the bragging rights, all the praises of men, were like the annoying noise clanging brass to ears of his heart. The Bible is unique among it ancient contemporaries namely because it does not whitewash the failings of the main characters, especially those who are the "heroes" of the Bible. Solomon is no exception, and God shows us the consequences of his sin.

Here is a man in Ecclesiastes who has no peace or satisfcation in his heart, who would give anything to start all over in his youth. As I read through Ecclesiastes, I see a man who looks back on the life he wasted and advises those still in their youth not to waste their lives in vain pursuits.

[Guest shiloh357]

Right on CJ!