Sure. There are several that I've personally had to deal with: baptism (by creed? by birth?), the nature of hell/eternal fate of the wicked, nature of Christ, even the support of slavery, etc.
The one that I see that's really in play right now actually has to do with the nature of hell/fate of the wicked.
You've probably heard the fate of the wicked is that whoever does not believe will go to hell: a place of eternal conscious torment (ECT). Proponents of this position will lean heavily on various scriptures:
* "It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 'where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.'" Mark 9:47-48
* "..lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever." (Rev 20:10).
There are a couple of examples. And they are used. A lot. However, the last couple of hundred years (at least, that we know of, perhaps further back, though it wasn't discussed as much) is the idea of annihilationism: That the fate of the wicked is not ECT but rather is simply to finally die again forever.
The doctrine of final judgement (for our purposes here is clearly defined in Matthew 25:31-46) declares that all of the dead will be raised and will be judged. So, if you were dead, you will be raised and then the final judgement will be made and the two sides (the left and the right) will go to their inheritance: either Christ's kingdom or eternal fire.
But the idea that eternal fire _means_ eternal conscious torment for the wicked makes some specific assumptions that many people assume but are not supported:
* Why is it assumed that all who are raised are now immortal?
* Why does the nature of the fire (i.e. that it is eternal) mean that it must burn eternally rather than simply describe its provenance and its effectiveness.
For me (and for many others), we do not find the "evidence" of ECT compelling and can actually point to a number of other areas where ECT makes no sense. The biggest example is everyone's favorite verse: John 3:16 (For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him shall not PERISH but have ETERNAL LIFE). EMPHASIS MINE. In what world does "Perish" mean "be alive but tortured forever"?
Anyway, the point is that many people start with the end in mind. They start with ECT and work their way backwards. Scripture has the advantage over the natural sciences in that (at least for protestants) we believe the canon is closed and therefore no new information can be made available. We have what we have to work with.
The point is that both science and religion can "start with the end" in mind and back-fill to make their position seem solid.
This has been done with global-warming/climate-change. Being done with COVID measures. Each side has their own set of data that they want to use but the wholistic set of data may or may not ultimately support an individual position.
The one that I see that's really in play right now actually has to do with the nature of hell/fate of the wicked.
You've probably heard the fate of the wicked is that whoever does not believe will go to hell: a place of eternal conscious torment (ECT). Proponents of this position will lean heavily on various scriptures:
* "It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 'where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.'" Mark 9:47-48 * "..lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever." (Rev 20:10).
There are a couple of examples. And they are used. A lot. However, the last couple of hundred years (at least, that we know of, perhaps further back, though it wasn't discussed as much) is the idea of annihilationism: That the fate of the wicked is not ECT but rather is simply to finally die again forever.
The doctrine of final judgement (for our purposes here is clearly defined in Matthew 25:31-46) declares that all of the dead will be raised and will be judged. So, if you were dead, you will be raised and then the final judgement will be made and the two sides (the left and the right) will go to their inheritance: either Christ's kingdom or eternal fire.
But the idea that eternal fire _means_ eternal conscious torment for the wicked makes some specific assumptions that many people assume but are not supported:
* Why is it assumed that all who are raised are now immortal? * Why does the nature of the fire (i.e. that it is eternal) mean that it must burn eternally rather than simply describe its provenance and its effectiveness.
For me (and for many others), we do not find the "evidence" of ECT compelling and can actually point to a number of other areas where ECT makes no sense. The biggest example is everyone's favorite verse: John 3:16 (For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him shall not PERISH but have ETERNAL LIFE). EMPHASIS MINE. In what world does "Perish" mean "be alive but tortured forever"?
Anyway, the point is that many people start with the end in mind. They start with ECT and work their way backwards. Scripture has the advantage over the natural sciences in that (at least for protestants) we believe the canon is closed and therefore no new information can be made available. We have what we have to work with.