Is there an objective standard by which to distinguish sound doctrine from false?

[Bruce Woodford]

Yes. The word oinos does not cover things like beer and whiskey unless you make a logical deduction.

That may be true but Eph.5 is not the only passage that warns us not to be drunken! Drunkenness (with no specification of the beverage) is clearly warned about and forbidden in scripture.

 

[Bruce Woodford]

A point with which I fully agree.



Not entirely true. Some of them freely admit they are making stuff up and that you cannot get their made-up stuff from the Bible. Thus for some of them when you propose "Sola scriptura testing" they immediately oppose the suggestion.

 

[Bruce Woodford]

That may be true in some instances, but my concern is about doctrines held by those who claim "sola scriptura" but include in that "doctrines deduced by good and necessary consequence"! For example many "Reformers" hold tenaciously to "sola scriptura" and hold just as tenaciously to "infant baptism", "total depravity", "unconditional election", "limited atonement" and "perseverance of the saints" NONE of which can be stated in words of scripture but actually contradict sound biblical doctrines which are stated in scripture alone!

 

[Tree of Life]

That may be true but Eph.5 is not the only passage that warns us not to be drunken! Drunkenness (with no specification of the beverage) is clearly warned about and forbidden in scripture.

That's true. But in your view would you say that getting drunk by drinking whiskey is not condemned in Ephesians 5?

 

[Bruce Woodford]

That's true. But in your view would you say that getting drunk by drinking whiskey is not condemned in Ephesians 5?

If Eph.5 was the only passage in scripture which spoke of drunkenness, and if oinos really is specifically and only made from grapes (as you claim) one would be going beyond scripture to apply the principle wider than the scripture does. Hope that answers your question. IN other words if "logical deductions" or doctrines deduced from scripture by good and necessary consequence teach us something which scripture itself does not, those logical deductions are false doctrines.

 

[Tree of Life]

If Eph.5 was the only passage in scripture which spoke of drunkenness, and if oinos really is specifically and only made from grapes (as you claim) one would be going beyond scripture to apply the principle wider than the scripture does. Hope that answers your question. IN other words if "logical deductions" or doctrines deduced from scripture by good and necessary consequence teach us something which scripture itself does not, those logical deductions are false doctrines.

Your narrow approach to interpretation is very different from how Jesus interpreted the Bible.

In Matthew 12 Jesus and his disciples walk through a grain field on the Sabbath and pluck the heads to eat grain. The Pharisees accuse Jesus and his disciples of violating the Sabbath by plucking the grain. Jesus responds in this way:

Matthew 12:3-4 - “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?"

Jesus alludes to the story about David eating the sacred bread. He deduced from this passage, which has nothing to do with the Sabbath, that it is lawful to pluck heads of grain on the Sabbath. He made this deduction and he expected the Pharisees to be able to make the same kinds of deductions.

Jesus deduced from Scripture using good and necessary consequence. Why don't you follow Jesus in the way that he handled Scripture?

 

[Tree of Life]

If Eph.5 was the only passage in scripture which spoke of drunkenness, and if oinos really is specifically and only made from grapes (as you claim) one would be going beyond scripture to apply the principle wider than the scripture does. Hope that answers your question. IN other words if "logical deductions" or doctrines deduced from scripture by good and necessary consequence teach us something which scripture itself does not, those logical deductions are false doctrines.

I think it would be a perfectly legitimate deduction to say that for Paul in Ephesians 5, the exact substance which makes one drunk is not the important matter. The getting drunk is the important matter. So when he condemns getting drunk by wine he also condemns getting drunk by anything.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Over the last three weeks I have been reading through the Bible again. I am now up to Ezekiel. From what I have read so far, I am quite convinced that the difference between sound and false doctrine is very clear, especially in the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah. Sound doctrine as reflected in these books is that which turns a person toward God, to do His commands, worship Him alone and to put one's whole trust in Him. False doctrine leads one away from God to other gods and to think that one can engage in wilful sin and still be accepted by God. Isaiah made a comment about those who practice righteousness, but their hearts are far away from God. This means that the outward actions to do with righteousness do not necessarily mean that a person is right with God. People can do religious stuff out of a sense of duty, or to be part of the culture, or please family, but their hearts are not right with God Himself. These people can appear to be very good believers to the point where it might take the discernment of spirits to be able to distinguish the true from the false. I think it was Isaiah again who said, "Rend your hearts and not your garments." Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart. This means that a person can shout "Hallelujah!", pray passionately, show knowledge of the Bible, fall down, vibrate, prophesy, and even preach great sermons; and yet his heart can be right away from God.

 

[Bruce Woodford]

Your narrow approach to interpretation is very different from how Jesus interpreted the Bible.

In Matthew 12 Jesus and his disciples walk through a grain field on the Sabbath and pluck the heads to eat grain. The Pharisees accuse Jesus and his disciples of violating the Sabbath by plucking the grain. Jesus responds in this way:

Matthew 12:3-4 - “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?"

Jesus alludes to the story about David eating the sacred bread. He deduced from this passage, which has nothing to do with the Sabbath, that it is lawful to pluck heads of grain on the Sabbath. He made this deduction and he expected the Pharisees to be able to make the same kinds of deductions.

Jesus deduced from Scripture using good and necessary consequence. Why don't you follow Jesus in the way that he handled Scripture?

Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath! You and I are not! We have no authority to do many things that he did and said! We have no authority to teach infant baptism, purgatory, a pre-trib rapture et

Your narrow approach to interpretation is very different from how Jesus interpreted the Bible.

In Matthew 12 Jesus and his disciples walk through a grain field on the Sabbath and pluck the heads to eat grain. The Pharisees accuse Jesus and his disciples of violating the Sabbath by plucking the grain. Jesus responds in this way:

Matthew 12:3-4 - “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?"

Jesus alludes to the story about David eating the sacred bread. He deduced from this passage, which has nothing to do with the Sabbath, that it is lawful to pluck heads of grain on the Sabbath. He made this deduction and he expected the Pharisees to be able to make the same kinds of deductions.

Jesus deduced from Scripture using good and necessary consequence. Why don't you follow Jesus in the way that he handled Scripture?

 

[Bruce Woodford]

The Lord Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath, He was and is God.... you and I are not, so we have no authority to deduce "infant baptism", "Purgatory" a "pre-tribulation rapture" or even "justification by faith alone" when scripture does not teach any one of them!

 

[Bruce Woodford]

Over the last three weeks I have been reading through the Bible again. I am now up to Ezekiel. From what I have read so far, I am quite convinced that the difference between sound and false doctrine is very clear, especially in the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah. Sound doctrine as reflected in these books is that which turns a person toward God, to do His commands, worship Him alone and to put one's whole trust in Him. False doctrine leads one away from God to other gods and to think that one can engage in wilful sin and still be accepted by God. Isaiah made a comment about those who practice righteousness, but their hearts are far away from God. This means that the outward actions to do with righteousness do not necessarily mean that a person is right with God. People can do religious stuff out of a sense of duty, or to be part of the culture, or please family, but their hearts are not right with God Himself. These people can appear to be very good believers to the point where it might take the discernment of spirits to be able to distinguish the true from the false. I think it was Isaiah again who said, "Rend your hearts and not your garments." Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart. This means that a person can shout "Hallelujah!", pray passionately, show knowledge of the Bible, fall down, vibrate, prophesy, and even preach great sermons; and yet his heart can be right away from God.

What you have observed may very well be well and good. But when faced with doctrines such as purgatory, infant baptism, the virgin birth of Immanuel, justification by faith, justification by faith alone, substitutionary atonement etc.... how do you distinguish between those doctrines which are sound and those which are false doctrines?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

What you have observed may very well be well and good. But when faced with doctrines such as purgatory, infant baptism, the virgin birth of Immanuel, justification by faith, justification by faith alone, substitutionary atonement etc.... how do you distinguish between those doctrines which are sound and those which are false doctrines?

Well, for a start, there is no mention of purgatory or infant baptism in the Bible, so we can discount those right away. If people want to believe in those, then they are free to make that choice. Whether believing in them will do them good in the long run remains to be seen.

The other doctrines that you list are mentioned in the Bible and therefore are more likely to be believable. The interesting thing about the Bible is that it says what it says and does not go into lengthy justifying explanations of why it is true. It takes the attitude of "take it or leave it" concerning whether people decide to believe it or not.

God did not stop Israel and Judah worshiping idols. They made that choice, despite the many warnings giving by the prophets He sent them. But, as is shown in Isaiah and Jeremiah, there are consequences for the choices the people made. The choice to adopt idolatry resulted in utter ruin, disease, famine and death for those who participated. It is interesting in Ezekiel's vision, the angel with the pen and paper was told to go around the city and put a mark on the foreheads of all those who mourned and saddened by the idolatry. When the destroying angel went through to kill all the idolators, he was told not to harm those who had a mark on their foreheads.

Because God never punishes the innocent with the guilty, although there are severe penalties for those who reject God and run after idols, there are very positive consequences for those who remain true to God and walk in His ways.

So, we are quite free to choose what we want to believe, just as long as we are prepared to take the consquences, positive or negative.

 

[BobRyan]

If Eph.5 was the only passage in scripture which spoke of drunkenness, and if oinos really is specifically and only made from grapes (as you claim) one would be going beyond scripture to apply the principle wider than the scripture does. Hope that answers your question. IN other words if "logical deductions" or doctrines deduced from scripture by good and necessary consequence teach us something which scripture itself does not, those logical deductions are false doctrines.

There are many false doctrines that "would not be disproven by scripture" as long as we could edit scripture down to just being one text on any given topic.

Eph 5
"18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation"

The reason is "that is dissipation"

intemperate living; especially : excessive drinking

So then no matter what results in the drunking state - being drunk is the problem. And the reason given for not getting "drunk with wine" is that that "is dissipation" -- intemperate living - expecially applicable to drinking alcoholic beverage.

Recall that the term for "wine" in the Greek is the more general term for "beverage" in English. Context determines whether it is alcoholic or not.

 

[BobRyan]

Well, for a start, there is no mention of purgatory or infant baptism in the Bible, so we can discount those right away.

True.

It is not just that "the word" is not in the Bible (for as we all know the term "Bible" is also not in the Bible) - but the concept / the teaching is contrary to the Bible.

If people want to believe in those, then they are free to make that choice.

 

[BobRyan]

The Lord Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath, He was and is God.... you and I are not, so we have no authority to deduce "infant baptism", "Purgatory" a "pre-tribulation rapture" or even "justification by faith alone" when scripture does not teach any one of them!

In James 2 we have

James 2
24 "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone."

So at least that term "by faith alone" does appear at least once in the Bible.

but Romans 3 adds another reference which may be helpful.
28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law

Where in Romans 3 the term "works of the law" is defined as "works apart from faith"

And thus both James 2 and Romans 3 agree.

 

[Bruce Woodford]

Well, for a start, there is no mention of purgatory or infant baptism in the Bible, so we can discount those right away. If people want to believe in those, then they are free to make that choice. Whether believing in them will do them good in the long run remains to be seen.

The other doctrines that you list are mentioned in the Bible and therefore are more likely to be believable. The interesting thing about the Bible is that it says what it says and does not go into lengthy justifying explanations of why it is true. It takes the attitude of "take it or leave it" concerning whether people decide to believe it or not.

God did not stop Israel and Judah worshiping idols. They made that choice, despite the many warnings giving by the prophets He sent them. But, as is shown in Isaiah and Jeremiah, there are consequences for the choices the people made. The choice to adopt idolatry resulted in utter ruin, disease, famine and death for those who participated. It is interesting in Ezekiel's vision, the angel with the pen and paper was told to go around the city and put a mark on the foreheads of all those who mourned and saddened by the idolatry. When the destroying angel went through to kill all the idolators, he was told not to harm those who had a mark on their foreheads.

Because God never punishes the innocent with the guilty, although there are severe penalties for those who reject God and run after idols, there are very positive consequences for those who remain true to God and walk in His ways.

So, we are quite free to choose what we want to believe, just as long as we are prepared to take the consquences, positive or negative.

You recognised purgatory and infant baptism immediately as false doctrines because they are not in the Bible. That is good for starters, but "justification by faith alone" is not in the Bible either, nor is "substitutionary atonement" nor is a "pre-tribulation rapture"!

 

[Bruce Woodford]

In James 2 we have

James 2
24 "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone."

So at least that term "by faith alone" does appear at least once in the Bible.

but Romans 3 adds another reference which may be helpful.
28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law

Where in Romans 3 the term "works of the law" is defined as "works apart from faith"

And thus both James 2 and Romans 3 agree.

Exactly! James 2:24 marks out the doctrine of "justification by faith alone" as a false doctrine! Justification by faith is a scriptural doctrine, but add just one word and you make it a false doctrine which denies many other truths of scripture! Faith must have an object so scripture tells us we are justified by Christ. But Christ had to do something (die and shed his blood) in order to justify us. So scripture teaches that we are justified by His blood. Justification is also by grace and by works, but as you pointed out, not by works of the law!

 

[Bruce Woodford]

True.

It is not just that "the word" is not in the Bible (for as we all know the term "Bible" is also not in the Bible) - but the concept / the teaching is contrary to the Bible.

If people want to believe in those, then they are free to make that choice.

But the point is, we need to be able to objectively distinguish between sound doctrines and false doctrines. Scripture gives us three tests: (1) Can my doctrine be stated in pure words of the Lord? Ps.12:6 (2) Can it be stated apart from additional words? (Prov.30:5,6) and (3) Can it be stated in words which the Holy Spirit teaches apart from any words which man's wisdom teaches?

 

[BobRyan]

But the point is, we need to be able to objectively distinguish between sound doctrines and false doctrines. Scripture gives us three tests: (1) Can my doctrine be stated in pure words of the Lord? Ps.12:6 (2) Can it be stated apart from additional words? (Prov.30:5,6) and (3) Can it be stated in words which the Holy Spirit teaches apart from any words which man's wisdom teaches?

1. All teachers claim that the Holy Spirit is the one directing them to teach as they do. But they do not all teach truth as we both agree.

2. There is an entire volume of "additional words" found in the NT that are not already in the OT.

3. The NT cannot be stated as "nothing more than direct quotes of Christ".

As we probably both agree.

Sola scriptura does not mean "nothing more than paraphrase scripture" it means "testing" against scripture.

Thus when we say the Bible is the Word of God and affirm it - we do so knowing that the term "Bible" is not found at all "in the Bible". But it is a reasonable thing to say knowing what the Bible does teach.

=========

another example

Ps.12:6 (2) Can it be stated apart from additional words?

All of the NT and half the OT is "Additional words" beyond Psalms 12

=======
Another example

The trinity, the godhead "God in three persons" as the song says - can be shown this way.

Deut 6:4 "one God"
Matthew 28:19 "three persons"

but without Matthew 28:19 (which did not exist at the time of Ps 12 that you reference above) that would have been much harder to prove "sola scriptura"

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

It is interesting that the Jewish Pharisees were the strictest of the Biblical scholars of the time and the standards of sound doctrine was measured by their comprehensive knowledge of the Scriptures. But they missed Jesus as being the Messiah, and Jesus Himself called them hypocrites because even though the Pharisees knew and taught sound doctrine, they did not practice it themselves.

It is also interesting that the people heard and accepted the prophecy of Ezekiel and honoured him for it, but as the Lord said to him: "They do not do righteousness."

So there is the difference between reading and knowing the Bible and the difference between sound and false doctrine, but all that is useless if they do not put the sound doctrine into practice. Knowing the Bible and about God, is not the same as knowing the ways of God and putting them into practice.