Good and necessary consequence what does it mean and what are its implications?

[twin1954]

As the title of this thread suggests I would like to have a civil conversation on the subject.

As many of you know I am not for its use in the study of Scriptures. The forum is kind of slow so I thought I might stir it up a bit. Hopefully without stirring animosity or heat.

 

[Tree of Life]

The "good and necessary consequences" idea can be simply put like this:

What the Bible implies, the Bible teaches.

It's not just what the Bible clearly says which is authoritative for us. What the Bible clearly implies is also authoritative for us. The process of discerning what follows from Scripture by good and necessary consequences is simply the process of logically thinking through what Scripture is saying, implying, and meaning for all of life.

 

[twin1954]

The "good and necessary consequences" idea can be simply put like this:

What the Bible implies, the Bible teaches.

It's not just what the Bible clearly says which is authoritative for us. What the Bible clearly implies is also authoritative for us. The process of discerning what follows from Scripture by good and necessary consequences is simply the process of logically thinking through what Scripture is saying, implying, and meaning for all of life.

Threin lies the problem. What men think the Bible implies cannot be binding on others. We cannot build our doctrine on implications but on what is actually said in the Scriptures. Certainly logic is a very useful tool to be used in comparing Scriptures to Scriptures but it is only a tool. Truth cannot be gained by implication but by clear and undeniable facts. That is the point of logic.

 

[Tree of Life]

Threin lies the problem. What men think the Bible implies cannot be binding on others. We cannot build our doctrine on implications but on what is actually said in the Scriptures. Certainly logic is a very useful tool to be used in comparing Scriptures to Scriptures but it is only a tool. Truth cannot be gained by implication but by clear and undeniable facts. That is the point of logic.

Truth actually can be gained by implication. Logical implications are facts. They are nothing more than the full unfolding of facts which are already implied within what it explicitly stated.

For example, if I say that an apple costs $1 and you reply that you only have .75 cents - the logical implication is that you cannot afford the apple. Even though that's not what you explicitly said, it is logically implied.

Or to take another example from Math, 5 is the logical implication of (2+3).

Taking this to Scripture, the Bible only says (in the 10 commandments) "Thou shalt not steal". But what if you were to say: "Well, am I allowed to cheat on my taxes?" The answer, of course, is no. Because Thou shalt not cheat on your taxes is implied in thou shalt not steal.

If you get rid of logical implication then it will be almost impossible to apply Scripture to our lives at all. We'll never be able to arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity, etc...

 

[twin1954]

Truth actually can be gained by implication. Logical implications are facts. They are nothing more than the full unfolding of facts which are already implied within what it explicitly stated.

For example, if I say that an apple costs $1 and you reply that you only have .75 cents - the logical implication is that you cannot afford the apple. Even though that's not what you explicitly said, it is logically implied.

Or to take another example from Math, 5 is the logical implication of (2+3).

Taking this to Scripture, the Bible only says (in the 10 commandments) "Thou shalt not steal". But what if you were to say: "Well, am I allowed to cheat on my taxes?" The answer, of course, is no. Because Thou shalt not cheat on your taxes is implied in thou shalt not steal.

If you get rid of logical implication then it will be almost impossible to apply Scripture to our lives at all. We'll never be able to arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity, etc...

So the implication of what you say is that sola scriptural isn't true? I ask because your explanation would imply that we use Scriptures and what we can imply from them as the basis of what truth is.

Edit for additional comment: how does your view differ from the RCC view of Scriptures and tradition?

 

[twin1954]

The trinity is clearly seen in Scriptures without implying it. Substitution is clearly taught without implying it. Truth isn't implied in Scriptures it is clearly revealed. The Bible doesn't need to imply that you can't cheat on your taxes it is clearly revealed in thou shalt not steal. Application of revealed truth is not te same as necessary consequence.

 

[Tree of Life]

So the implication of what you say is that sola scriptural isn't true? I ask because your explanation would imply that we use Scriptures and what we can imply from them as the basis of what truth is.

Sola Scriptura does not exclude what Scripture implies. Again, what the Bible implies, the Bible teaches.

Jesus told the Pharisees that the story of David eating the sacred bread implies that it is not wrong to pluck grain on the Sabbath.

 

[Tree of Life]

The trinity is clearly seen in Scriptures without implying it. Substitution is clearly taught without implying it. Truth isn't implied in Scriptures it is clearly revealed. The Bible doesn't need to imply that you can't cheat on your taxes it is clearly revealed in thou shalt not steal.

What you call "clearly seen" I call "clearly implied".

Application of revealed truth is not te same as necessary consequence.

Yes it is.

 

[twin1954]

Sola Scriptura does not exclude what Scripture implies. Again, what the Bible implies, the Bible teaches.

it means Scripture alone does it not? If what can be implied by Scriture is added to the authority of the Scriptures then it isn't sola scriptura. If it were then whatever men can logically deduce from the Scripture is authoritative. It leaves open all sorts of heresy.

Jesus told the Pharisees that the story of David eating the sacred bread implies that it is not wrong to pluck grain on the Sabbath.

Except that wasn't what the Lord was teaching at all. He was teaching that though David wasn't a priest he was allowed to eat of it being hungry. He was showing the Pharisees that they didn't understand the law at all.

 

[Tree of Life]

it means Scripture alone does it not? If what can be implied by Scriture is added to the authority of the Scriptures then it isn't sola scriptura. If it were then whatever men can logically deduce from the Scripture is authoritative. It leaves open all sorts of heresy.

Whatever men can logically deduce from Scripture is authoritative. Because it's not just the bare words that God says which are authoritative. What God implies by his words is also authoritative.

Except that wasn't what the Lord was teaching at all. He was teaching that though David wasn't a priest he was allowed to eat of it being hungry. He was showing the Pharisees that they didn't understand the law at all.

The Lord was teaching that it was okay for him and his disciples to pluck heads of grain on the Sabbath to satisfy their hunger. This teaching was implied from the example of David and the holy bread.

 

[twin1954]

What you call "clearly seen" I call "clearly implied".

The Trinity isn't implied at all it is clearly seen when all three persons of the Godhead appear at the same time at His baptism. The same with substitution. It is clearly taught by Christ in His being the Good Shepherd who gives His life for the sheep as well as in many other place where implying isn't necessary.

Yes it is.

Though I grasp how you arrive at that I respectfully disagree. I can apply many principles of the Scriptures such as how to manage my money without it being authoritative. I have no right to impose my applications on anyone else.

 

[twin1954]

Whatever men can logically deduce from Scripture is authoritative. Because it's not just the bare words that God says which are authoritative. What God implies by his words is also authoritative.

I get that that is what you believe and why but as I explained above it leaves open the door to all kinds of error.

The Lord was teaching that it was okay for him and his disciples to pluck heads of grain on the Sabbath to satisfy their hunger. This teaching was implied from the example of David and the holy bread.

Actually the Lord clearly tells us what He was teaching. The Sabbath was meant for man not man for the Sabbath.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura itself is arrived at through implication, and the canon through presupposition. Enjoy!

 

[Tree of Life]

I get that that is what you believe and why but as I explained above it leaves open the door to all kinds of error.

People make errors all the time when interpreting Scripture. But logic is not subjective. Logical errors can be discerned and seen by all. So it's actually pretty easy to deduce from Scripture using good and necessary consequences and it's easy to see bad logic and to reject it.

Actually the Lord clearly tells us what He was teaching. The Sabbath was meant for man not man for the Sabbath.

Ok. Interesting statement. But what does this have anything to do with picking heads of grain on the Sabbath?

 

[Tree of Life]

The Trinity isn't implied at all it is clearly seen when all three persons of the Godhead appear at the same time at His baptism. The same with substitution. It is clearly taught by Christ in His being the Good Shepherd who gives His life for the sheep as well as in many other place where implying isn't necessary.

Just because the Father, Son, and Spirit are all present at the baptism of Jesus does not mean that these three entities are co-equal and co-eternal persons. The full doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the passages concerning Jesus' baptism.

Though I grasp how you arrive at that I respectfully disagree. I can apply many principles of the Scriptures such as how to manage my money without it being authoritative. I have no right to impose my applications on anyone else.

Some of our personal applications of Scripture have a degree of uncertainty or speculation such that we would hold ourselves to them, but we would not hold others to them.

Other applications of Scripture have such a degree of certainty that we would gladly hold others to them.

 

[JM]

Bro. Twin, love ya man. This ain't a hill to die on. We all use logic when reading scripture...it's God ordained. Sure, logic can be faulty but it's still God's gift to us, even if we misuse or abuse it.

 

[twin1954]

Bro. Twin, love ya man. This ain't a hill to die on. We all use logic when reading scripture...it's God ordained. Sure, logic can be faulty but it's still God's gift to us, even if we misuse or abuse it.

I know brother. I was just trying to get some conversation started. It did kind of backfire on me.

 

[JM]

Good idea, this place is dead...needs more hyper Calvinists if you ask me lol

 

[hedrick]

Human language isn't computer code. It is often indirect. I'd say any conclusions that the author's intended recipients would have drawn from the text is part of the meaning of the text. But there's a difference between something that's clearly implied and something that it took centuries for people to develop. Hence I wouldn't say that the Trinity as finally codified (three hypostases with one ousia) is taught in Scripture. It's a good-faith attempt to summarize and clarify what is taught.